Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Idaho; Regional Haze Progress Report, 13582-13587 [2019-06739]

Download as PDF 13582 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules (iii) The travel burden on covered veterans based upon their medical conditions and the geographic location of eligible transplant centers. (iv) The timeliness of transplant center evaluations and management. (3) This paragraph (d) applies to covered veterans who meet one or more conditions of eligibility under § 17.4010(a) and: (i) Require an organ or bone marrow transplant as determined by VA based upon generally-accepted medical criteria; and (ii) Have, in the opinion of the primary care provider of the veteran, a medically compelling reason, as determined in consideration of the factors described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, to travel outside the region of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network in which the veteran resides, to receive such transplant. [FR Doc. 2019–06730 Filed 4–4–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320–01–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R10–OAR–2017–0571; FRL–9991–69– Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Idaho; Regional Haze Progress Report AGENCY: Environmental Protection Table of Contents Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Idaho’s Regional Haze Progress Report (‘‘progress report’’ or ‘‘report’’), submitted by the State of Idaho on June 28, 2016, as a revision to the Idaho Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). Idaho submitted its progress report and a negative declaration stating that further revision of the existing Regional Haze SIP is not needed at this time. The progress report addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the federal Regional Haze Rule that require states to submit periodic reports describing progress made toward achieving reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the state’s existing plan addressing regional haze. DATES: Comments are due no later than May 6, 2019. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Apr 04, 2019 Jkt 247001 OAR–2017–0571 at http:// 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 the disclosure of which 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 EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Chi, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW–150), EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101; (206) 553–1185; chi.john@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. I. Background II. Context for Understanding Idaho’s Progress Report A. Framework for Measuring Progress B. Data Sources for Idaho’s Progress Report III. The EPA’s Evaluation of Idaho’s Progress Report A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional Haze SIP 1. BART-Level Controls 2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)/Major New Source Review (NSR) 3. Smoke Management B. Summary of Visibility Conditions C. Visibility Monitoring Strategy D. Summary of Emissions Reductions E. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR 51.308 (h)) F. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (40 CFR 51.308 (i)) IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background Idaho submitted its initial Regional Haze SIP to the EPA on October 25, 2010, for the first regional haze planning period ending in 2018, which the EPA approved on June 22, 2011, and PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 November 8, 2012.1 Five years after submittal of the initial regional haze plan, states were required to submit progress reports that evaluate progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area 2 (Class I area) within the state and in each Class I area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States were also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state’s existing regional haze plan. 40 CFR 51.308(h). On June 28, 2016, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted, as a SIP revision, a report on the progress made in the first implementation period towards the RPGs for Class I areas. EPA is proposing to approve Idaho’s progress report on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. We also propose to find that Idaho’s progress report demonstrates that the state’s longterm strategy and emission control measures in the existing Regional Haze SIP are sufficient to enable Idaho to meet all established RPGs for 2018. II. Context for Understanding Idaho’s Progress Report To facilitate a better understanding of Idaho’s progress report as well as the EPA’s evaluation of it, this section provides background on the regional haze program in Idaho. A. Framework for Measuring Progress The EPA has established a metric for determining visibility conditions at Class I areas referred to as the ‘‘deciview index,’’ which is measured in deciviews, as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. The deciview index is calculated using monitoring data collected from the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (‘‘IMPROVE’’) network monitors. Idaho has five Class I areas: Hells Canyon Wilderness, Sawtooth Wilderness, Craters of the Moon National Monument, Yellowstone National Park, and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Both Hells Canyon Wilderness and Yellowstone National Park have portions within Idaho, but the majority of the land masses for both of these Class I areas are in other states. For this reason, Idaho set the RPGs for Hells Canyon Wilderness, Sawtooth 1 See 76 FR 36329 (Jun. 22, 2011) and 77 FR 66929 (Nov. 8, 2012). 2 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D for a list of Class I areas. E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules Wilderness, and Craters of the Moon National Monument and the 5-year Progress Report analyzes progress towards the RPGs at these three Class I areas. In developing its initial Regional Haze SIP as part of the Western Regional Air Partnership (‘‘WRAP’’), Idaho determined, and the EPA in its approval agreed, that implementation of best available retrofit technology (‘‘BART’’) and other existing measures in the State’s regional haze plan was sufficient to address the visibility impact of sources in Idaho on Class I areas in other states. See 77 FR 66929, 66933. Therefore, Idaho’s progress report does not address the visibility impact of Idaho sources on Class I areas in other states. Under the Regional Haze Rule, a state’s initial Regional Haze SIP must establish two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One for the 20-percent least impaired days and one for the 20percent most impaired days. The RPGs must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20-percent most impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on the 20percent least impaired days, as compared to visibility conditions during the baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a state must consider the uniform rate of visibility improvement from the baseline to natural conditions in 2064 and the emission reductions measures needed to achieve it. Idaho set the RPGs for the Hells Canyon Wilderness, Sawtooth Wilderness, and the Craters of the Moon National Monument Class I areas. In setting the RPGs for these three Class I areas, Idaho used atmospheric air quality modeling based on projected emission reductions from control strategies in Idaho’s Regional Haze SIP, as well as emission reductions expected to result from other federal, state, and local air quality programs. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS B. Data Sources for Idaho’s Progress Report Idaho relied on the WRAP technical data and analyses in a report titled ‘‘Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report’’ (‘‘WRAP Report’’), dated June 28, 2013, included as an appendix to the progress report. The WRAP Report analyzes monitoring data collected in Idaho during the 2005–2009 period, and it relies on emission data reported to the EPA’s National Emissions Inventory (NEI) up until 2011. Idaho then supplemented the information in the WRAP report with more current 2007–2011 visibility data for its Class I areas as part of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Apr 04, 2019 Jkt 247001 progress report adopted by the state in 2015. III. The EPA’s Evaluation of Idaho’s Progress Report This section describes the contents of Idaho’s progress report and the EPA’s evaluation of the report, as well as the EPA’s evaluation of the determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the requirement for state and Federal Land Manager (FLM) coordination in 40 CFR 51.308(i). A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional Haze SIP In its progress report, Idaho provided a description of the control measures in the state’s Regional Haze SIP that the state relied on to implement the regional haze program. Idaho relied in its Regional Haze SIP upon, among other things, BART controls, its Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New Source Review permitting program, and its smoke management programs for agricultural and forestry burning to achieve the RPGs it established for its Class I areas. Idaho included a description of these programs in the progress report, which is summarized below. 1. BART-Level Controls Idaho’s original Regional Haze SIP imposed BART-level controls on two sources, the #5 Rotary Kiln at the P4 Production (formerly Monsanto) Soda Springs facility and the Riley Boiler at The Amalgamated Sugar Company (TASCO), Nampa facility. In 2005, P4 Production underwent a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) review and installed a lime-concentrated dual-alkali (LCDA) scrubber on the #5 Rotary Kiln to control sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Idaho determined, and EPA in its approval agreed, that BART for the #5 Rotary Kiln was an emission limit of 143 pounds per hour of SO2 achieved through application of the LCDA scrubber. See 76 FR 36329, 36339 (Jun. 22, 2011).3 Idaho also concluded that existing controls were BART for the nitrogen oxide (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) emissions from the #5 Rotary Kiln. EPA also approved this determination. See 76 FR 36329, 36339 (Jun. 22, 2011). The emission limits are embodied in federally enforceable permits that Idaho continues to administer. For TASCO, Idaho determined that flue gas desulfurization and low NOX 3 The SO emissions limit is embodied in Idaho 2 Permit T2–2009.0109, which is included in the Docket for this action. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 13583 burners with over-fire air were the appropriate control technologies for the BART-eligible Riley Boiler. EPA approved BART for the Riley Boiler on May 22, 2012 (77 FR 66929). Subsequently, Idaho submitted revisions to its Regional Haze SIP that included a revised BART determination for the TASCO Nampa facility. Specifically, Idaho’s revised BART determination included a more stringent NOX emission limit, a more stringent PM emission limit, and a BART alternative to replace the SO2 BART determination. In addition to the more stringent NOX and PM emission limits for the Riley Boiler, the BART alternative relied on control of NOX emissions from two non-BART eligible boilers at the TASCO Nampa facility, as well as taking into account the emission reductions resulting from the permanent shutdown of three coal-fired pulp dryers. EPA approved Idaho’s revised BART determination for the TASCO Nampa facility on April 28, 2014. See 79 FR 23273, 23277. The BART emissions limits are embodied in a federally enforceable permit that went into effect on December 23, 2011. Idaho continues to administer this permit. 2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)/Major New Source Review (NSR) Idaho’s progress report states that a key regulatory program for addressing visibility impairment from new or modified industrial stationary sources is the state’s PSD/NSR program. This program protects visibility in Class I areas from impacts from new major or modified major stationary sources. According to the progress report, Idaho’s PSD program requires new or major modifications to model the emissions impacts on Class I areas within 300 kilometers to determine if the change in visibility above natural levels is significant. According to the progress report, Idaho continues to implement the PSD/NSR program. 3. Smoke Management In addition, Idaho continues to implement its crop residue and burning program. EPA published its approval of Idaho’s SIP revisions relating to open burning and crop residue disposal requirements on August 1, 2008 (73 FR 44915, 44919), March 19, 2013 (78 FR 16760, 16791), and most recently on June 19, 2018 (83 FR 28382, 28385). The compliance rate has improved through education and outreach, and Idaho DEQ has hired a meteorologist to guide burn decisions. There have also been improvements in the prescribed burning (forestry) program. Specifically, Idaho E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 13584 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules DEQ is working closely with the Idaho and Montana Airshed group, and Idaho DEQ’s smoke manager and meteorologist are involved in the day to day burn decisions. Both the crop residue and burning and the prescribed burning programs have improved through cooperative agreements with the Idaho Department of Lands and the burn permits now have specific language requiring burners to comply with Idaho open burning rules. B. Summary of Visibility Conditions In addition to the evaluation of control measures, Idaho documented the differences between the visibility conditions during the baseline period (2000–2004), the first progress period (2005–2009), and the most current fiveyear averaging period (2010–2014). Idaho used data available at the time Idaho developed the progress report in 2015. As part of our review, the EPA supplemented this information with current 2012–2016 data, as shown in Table 1.4 TABLE 1—IDAHO CLASS I AREA VISIBILITY CONDITIONS ON THE 20-PERCENT MOST AND LEAST IMPAIRED DAY IMPROVE monitor Baseline (2001–2004) (dv) 5 Class I area First progress period (2005–2009) (dv) Progress report update (2010–2014) (dv) Most recent data (2012–2016) (dv) 2018 reasonable progress goal (dv) 20-percent Most Impaired Days CRMO1 .......... SWAT1 .......... SULA1 ........... Craters of the Moon NM ................... Sawtooth Wilderness ........................ Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness ........... 14.0 13.8 13.4 13.6 14.8 17.0 14.1 15.7 15.0 14.1 15.2 11.3 13.06 13.22 12.94 3.0 3.0 1.7 2.8 2.5 1.5 3.9 3.8 2.5 20-percent Least Impaired Days khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS CRMO1 .......... SWAT1 .......... SULA1 ........... Craters of the Moon NM ................... Sawtooth Wilderness ........................ Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness ........... 4.3 4 2.6 3.4 3.8 2.5 As shown in Table 1, all Class I areas experienced improvements in visibility for the 20-percent least impaired days between the baseline (2000–2004) and the most recent (2012–2016) visibility periods. According to Idaho’s progress report, all Class I areas are meeting the RPGs for the 20-percent least impaired days. Idaho’s progress report included an analysis of progress and impediments to progress. Regarding the 20-percent most impaired days, according to the most recent monitoring data (2012–2016), the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness (SULA1 monitor) is meeting the RPG for the 20-percent most impaired days. However, according to the 2012–2016 data, visibility in the Sawtooth Wilderness (SWAT1 monitor) and the Craters of the Moon NM (CRMO1 monitor) is not meeting the 2018 RPGs for the 20-percent most impaired days. According to the progress report, visibility has not improved in the Sawtooth Wilderness and Craters of the Moon NM due to smoke from episodic wildfires in the area. Figures 6, 7, and 8 in the progress report show that SO2 and NOX emissions have decreased since 2000. In contrast, coarse PM emissions have increased during the same period. Figure 14, Figure 15, and Appendix D of the progress report show that, even though there has been a steady reduction in ammonium sulfate formation since 2000, indicative of a reduction in anthropogenic contributions to visibility impairment, particulate organic mass has consistently remained the dominant contributor to light extinction. The Sawtooth Wilderness and Craters of the Moon NM experienced a notable spike in light extinction caused by particulate organic mass emissions in 2012, which likely contributed to the areas not meeting their RPGs. The 2012 fires potentially impacting the Sawtooth Wilderness and Craters of the Moon NM include the Halstead Fire (181,000 acres), Mustang Complex (340,600 acres), and the Trinity Ridge Fire (146,800 acres).6 4 See document entitled ‘‘visibility data trends’’ included in the Docket for this action. 5 For all Idaho Class I monitoring sites, monitoring began in late 2000; therefore, only three VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Apr 04, 2019 Jkt 247001 C. Visibility Monitoring Strategy The progress report also contained a review of Idaho’s visibility monitoring strategy. Idaho concluded that the IMPROVE network continues to comply with the monitoring requirements in the Regional Haze Rule and that no modifications to Idaho’s visibility monitoring strategy are necessary at this time. D. Summary of Emissions Reductions The Idaho progress report also included a summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the state from the control measures discussed above. Specifically, Idaho PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 identified emissions reductions achieved through emissions controls on Idaho BART-eligible sources, including the P4 Production and the TASCO Nampa facilities. According to Idaho, implementation of BART caused significant reductions in emissions at both facilities. Installation of the LCDA scrubber on the P4 Production facility reduced SOX emissions by 11,000 tons per year. NOX emissions at the TASCO Nampa facility have also declined due to compliance with the BART requirements, namely implementation of low NOX burners, switching to natural gas, and the permanent shutdown of pulp dryers. Specifically, the BART alternative for the TASCO Nampa Facility achieved NOX emissions reductions of 221 tons per year, SO2 emissions reductions of 20.6 tons per year, and PM emissions reductions of 113 tons per year (78 FR 38872). The progress report also discussed improvements in Idaho’s smoke management programs made during the first planning period, as noted above. The progress report summarized changes in emission inventories for all major visibility impairing pollutants from point, area, on-road mobile, offroad mobile, oil and gas, fugitive and road dust, and anthropogenic fire source categories in the state. For these summaries, emissions during the baseline years are represented using a complete years of monitoring data, 2002–2004, define their baselines. 6 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/fire/201213. E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 13585 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules 2002 inventory, which was developed with support from the WRAP for use in the original Regional Haze SIP development. Differences between inventories are represented as the differences between the 2002 inventory, the 2008 inventory, and the 2011 inventory which leverages recent inventory development work performed by the WRAP for the West-wide Jump Start Air Quality Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) and Deterministic & Empirical Assessment of Smoke’s Contribution to Ozone Project (DEASCO3) modeling projects. The progress report also included an analysis tracking the change in emissions since the first progress period and the most recent progress period. Specifically, Idaho states that there has been a substantial reduction in anthropogenic sources of both SO2 and NOX. Estimated emissions reductions for SO2 and NOX are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3, below. These reductions are primarily attributed to the BART controls and the Tier II reductions in sulfur content of fuels and NOX vehicle emission standards. We note that the other visibility impairing pollutants (primary organic aerosols, elemental carbon) also generally declined as detailed in Chapter 2.3 of the progress report. As shown in Table 4 below, emissions increased for fine and coarse particulate matter because of a major change to the fugitive road dust calculations between 2008 and 2011.7 TABLE 2—SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY Sulfur dioxide emissions (tons/year) 2002 2008 2011 Anthropogenic Sources Point ............................................................................................................................................. Area ............................................................................................................................................. On-Road Mobile ........................................................................................................................... Off-Road Mobile ........................................................................................................................... Fugitive and Road Dust ............................................................................................................... Anthropogenic Fire ...................................................................................................................... 17,613 3,280 1,662 3,702 4 895 7,490 9,068 339 281 25 2,499 6,954 2,070 198 122 95 2,460 Total Anthropogenic ............................................................................................................. 27,156 19,702 11,899 Natural Fire .................................................................................................................................. Biogenic ....................................................................................................................................... Wind Blown Dust ......................................................................................................................... 12,008 0 0 852 0 0 3,005 0 0 Total Natural ......................................................................................................................... 12,008 852 3,005 39,164 20,554 14,904 Natural Sources All Sources Total Emissions .................................................................................................................... TABLE 3—NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY Nitrogen oxides emissions (tons/year) 2002 2008 2011 Anthropogenic Sources Point ............................................................................................................................................. Area ............................................................................................................................................. On-Road Mobile ........................................................................................................................... Off-Road Mobile ........................................................................................................................... Fugitive and Road Dust ............................................................................................................... Anthropogenic Fire ...................................................................................................................... 11,487 30,318 44,611 27,922 5 3,461 12,671 19,892 44,556 14,132 13 11,368 11,591 6,205 45,575 20,900 50 6,122 Total Anthropogenic ............................................................................................................. 117,804 102,632 90,443 Natural Fire .................................................................................................................................. Biogenic ....................................................................................................................................... Wind Blown Dust ......................................................................................................................... 39,401 16,982 0 3,815 4,806 0 7,878 4,459 0 Total Natural ......................................................................................................................... 56,383 8,621 12,337 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS Natural Sources 7 Fine soil and coarse mass decreased for the windblown dust inventory comparisons and increased for the combined fugitive/road dust inventories. Idaho noted that large variability in changes in windblown dust was observed for the VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Apr 04, 2019 Jkt 247001 contiguous WRAP states, which was likely due in large part to enhancements in dust inventory methodology, rather than changes in actual emissions. For most parameters, especially primary organic aerosols, volatile organic compounds, and PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 elemental carbon, natural fire emission inventory estimates decreased, and anthropogenic fire estimates increased. E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 13586 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3—NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY—Continued Nitrogen oxides emissions (tons/year) 2002 2008 2011 All Sources Total Emissions .................................................................................................................... 174,187 111,253 102,780 TABLE 4—FINE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY Fine particulate emissions (tons/year) 2002 2008 2011 Anthropogenic Sources Point ............................................................................................................................................. Area ............................................................................................................................................. On-Road Mobile ........................................................................................................................... Off-Road Mobile ........................................................................................................................... Fugitive and Road Dust ............................................................................................................... Anthropogenic Fire ...................................................................................................................... 305 4,749 0 0 4,839 1,536 0 2,364 175 46 12,564 8,358 246 408 185 0 44,037 18 Total Anthropogenic ............................................................................................................. 11,429 23,507 44,894 Natural Fire .................................................................................................................................. Biogenic ....................................................................................................................................... Wind Blown Dust ......................................................................................................................... 3,013 0 5,050 2,780 0 5,286 18 0 11,068 Total Natural ......................................................................................................................... 8,063 8,066 11,086 19,492 31,573 55,980 Natural Sources All Sources Total Emissions .................................................................................................................... In its progress report, Idaho concluded that the state is making adequate progress in improving visibility as a result of actions identified in the Regional Haze SIP, as well as actions taken by adjoining states, the federal government, the WRAP, and the Western States Air Resources Council. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS E. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR 51.308(h)) In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), if the state determines that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive revision in order to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions, the state must provide to the Administrator a negative declaration that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed at this time. Within the progress report, Idaho provided a negative declaration stating that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed. The basis for the state’s negative declaration is the finding that visibility on the 20-percent least impaired days has improved from the baseline period, and the SelwayBitterroot Wilderness Class I area VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Apr 04, 2019 Jkt 247001 attained its 2018 RPGs at the IMPROVE monitor. The Sawtooth Wilderness and the Craters of the Moon NM did not meet the 2018 RPGs for the 20-percent most impaired days at their respective monitors, which Idaho demonstrated was due to smoke from wildfires in 2012.8 Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find that Idaho adequately addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) in its determination that the existing Idaho Regional Haze SIP requires no substantive revisions at this time. F. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (40 CFR 51.308(i)) In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i), the state must provide the FLMs with an opportunity for consultation, in person 8 EPA acknowledged in its approval of Idaho’s Regional Haze SIP that the overwhelming amount of visibility impairment due to fire on the 20percent most impaired days at Idaho’s Class I areas is due to natural fire. See 77 FR 66929, 66933. In our approval of Idaho’s Regional Haze SIP, we agreed with Idaho’s conclusion that no additional controls on non-BART stationary sources in Idaho were reasonable for the first planning period because any visibility improvement expected from additional controls would likely be minimal due to the outsized influence of wildfires on visibility impairment. Id. at 66931. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearings on an implementation plan (or plan revision). The state must also include a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. The State of Idaho invited the FLMs to comment on its draft progress report on January 28, 2016, for a 60-day comment period ending March 28, 2016, prior to releasing the report for public comment. Idaho included the FLM comment and a description of how it addressed the comment in Appendix E of the progress report. The EPA proposes to find that Idaho has addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i). Idaho provided a 60-day period for the FLMs to comment on the progress report, which was at least 60 days before seeking public comments, and provided a summary of these comments and responses to these comments in the progress report. IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action The EPA is proposing to approve the Idaho Regional Haze Progress Report submitted to the EPA on June 28, 2016, as meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA and Regional Haze Rule, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The EPA proposes to find that the existing E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS Regional Haze SIP is adequate to meet the state’s visibility goals and requires no substantive revision at this time, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(h). We propose to find that Idaho fulfilled the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding state coordination with FLMs. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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 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 it does not involve technical standards; and • Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Apr 04, 2019 Jkt 247001 health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The proposed SIP would not be 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Therefore, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, and Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: March 27, 2019. Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 2019–06739 Filed 4–4–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0033; FXES111300000900000 178 FF09E42000] RIN 1018–BC65 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the California Condor in the Pacific Northwest Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information. AGENCY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), propose to establish a nonessential experimental population (NEP) of the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) in the Pacific Northwest, under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Establishment of this NEP will facilitate reintroduction of California condors to the region and provide for allowable legal incidental taking of the California SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 13587 condor within a defined NEP area. The geographic boundaries of the NEP would include northern California, northwest Nevada, and Oregon. The best available data indicate that reintroduction of the California condor into the Pacific Northwest is biologically feasible and will promote the conservation of the species. We are seeking comments on this proposal and on our joint FWS–National Park Service environmental assessment (EA), prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, which analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed reintroduction and designation of a nonessential experimental population. DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June 4, 2019. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date. ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods: • Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018– 0033, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the box next to Proposed Rules to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ • By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R1–ES–2018– 0033, Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS; BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041– 3803. We will post all comments on http:// www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Public Comments, below, for more information). Copies of documents: This proposed rule is available on http:// www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0033. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339. You may obtain copies of the EA and submit comments on that document at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/redwood. Information regarding public meetings E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13582-13587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06739]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0571; FRL-9991-69-Region 10]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Idaho; 
Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve Idaho's Regional Haze Progress Report (``progress report'' or 
``report''), submitted by the State of Idaho on June 28, 2016, as a 
revision to the Idaho Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). 
Idaho submitted its progress report and a negative declaration stating 
that further revision of the existing Regional Haze SIP is not needed 
at this time. The progress report addresses requirements of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) and the federal Regional Haze Rule that require states to 
submit periodic reports describing progress made toward achieving 
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a 
determination of the adequacy of the state's existing plan addressing 
regional haze.

DATES: Comments are due no later than May 6, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2017-0571 at http://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 the disclosure of which 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 EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Chi, Air Planning Unit, Office of 
Air and Waste (OAW-150), EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 
Seattle, Washington 98101; (206) 553-1185; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Context for Understanding Idaho's Progress Report
    A. Framework for Measuring Progress
    B. Data Sources for Idaho's Progress Report
III. The EPA's Evaluation of Idaho's Progress Report
    A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the 
Regional Haze SIP
    1. BART-Level Controls
    2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)/Major New 
Source Review (NSR)
    3. Smoke Management
    B. Summary of Visibility Conditions
    C. Visibility Monitoring Strategy
    D. Summary of Emissions Reductions
    E. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR 51.308 (h))
    F. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (40 CFR 51.308 (i))
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Idaho submitted its initial Regional Haze SIP to the EPA on October 
25, 2010, for the first regional haze planning period ending in 2018, 
which the EPA approved on June 22, 2011, and November 8, 2012.\1\ Five 
years after submittal of the initial regional haze plan, states were 
required to submit progress reports that evaluate progress towards the 
RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area \2\ (Class I area) within 
the state and in each Class I area outside the state which may be 
affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States 
were also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, 
a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze 
plan. 40 CFR 51.308(h). On June 28, 2016, the Idaho Department of 
Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted, as a SIP revision, a report on 
the progress made in the first implementation period towards the RPGs 
for Class I areas. EPA is proposing to approve Idaho's progress report 
on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. We 
also propose to find that Idaho's progress report demonstrates that the 
state's long-term strategy and emission control measures in the 
existing Regional Haze SIP are sufficient to enable Idaho to meet all 
established RPGs for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 76 FR 36329 (Jun. 22, 2011) and 77 FR 66929 (Nov. 8, 
2012).
    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). 
See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D for a list of Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Context for Understanding Idaho's Progress Report

    To facilitate a better understanding of Idaho's progress report as 
well as the EPA's evaluation of it, this section provides background on 
the regional haze program in Idaho.

A. Framework for Measuring Progress

    The EPA has established a metric for determining visibility 
conditions at Class I areas referred to as the ``deciview index,'' 
which is measured in deciviews, as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. The 
deciview index is calculated using monitoring data collected from the 
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (``IMPROVE'') 
network monitors. Idaho has five Class I areas: Hells Canyon 
Wilderness, Sawtooth Wilderness, Craters of the Moon National Monument, 
Yellowstone National Park, and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Both Hells 
Canyon Wilderness and Yellowstone National Park have portions within 
Idaho, but the majority of the land masses for both of these Class I 
areas are in other states. For this reason, Idaho set the RPGs for 
Hells Canyon Wilderness, Sawtooth

[[Page 13583]]

Wilderness, and Craters of the Moon National Monument and the 5-year 
Progress Report analyzes progress towards the RPGs at these three Class 
I areas.
    In developing its initial Regional Haze SIP as part of the Western 
Regional Air Partnership (``WRAP''), Idaho determined, and the EPA in 
its approval agreed, that implementation of best available retrofit 
technology (``BART'') and other existing measures in the State's 
regional haze plan was sufficient to address the visibility impact of 
sources in Idaho on Class I areas in other states. See 77 FR 66929, 
66933. Therefore, Idaho's progress report does not address the 
visibility impact of Idaho sources on Class I areas in other states.
    Under the Regional Haze Rule, a state's initial Regional Haze SIP 
must establish two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One for the 20-
percent least impaired days and one for the 20-percent most impaired 
days. The RPGs must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20-
percent most impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on 
the 20-percent least impaired days, as compared to visibility 
conditions during the baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a 
state must consider the uniform rate of visibility improvement from the 
baseline to natural conditions in 2064 and the emission reductions 
measures needed to achieve it. Idaho set the RPGs for the Hells Canyon 
Wilderness, Sawtooth Wilderness, and the Craters of the Moon National 
Monument Class I areas. In setting the RPGs for these three Class I 
areas, Idaho used atmospheric air quality modeling based on projected 
emission reductions from control strategies in Idaho's Regional Haze 
SIP, as well as emission reductions expected to result from other 
federal, state, and local air quality programs.

B. Data Sources for Idaho's Progress Report

    Idaho relied on the WRAP technical data and analyses in a report 
titled ``Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable 
Progress Summary Report'' (``WRAP Report''), dated June 28, 2013, 
included as an appendix to the progress report. The WRAP Report 
analyzes monitoring data collected in Idaho during the 2005-2009 
period, and it relies on emission data reported to the EPA's National 
Emissions Inventory (NEI) up until 2011. Idaho then supplemented the 
information in the WRAP report with more current 2007-2011 visibility 
data for its Class I areas as part of the progress report adopted by 
the state in 2015.

III. The EPA's Evaluation of Idaho's Progress Report

    This section describes the contents of Idaho's progress report and 
the EPA's evaluation of the report, as well as the EPA's evaluation of 
the determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the 
requirement for state and Federal Land Manager (FLM) coordination in 40 
CFR 51.308(i).

A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional 
Haze SIP

    In its progress report, Idaho provided a description of the control 
measures in the state's Regional Haze SIP that the state relied on to 
implement the regional haze program. Idaho relied in its Regional Haze 
SIP upon, among other things, BART controls, its Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration/New Source Review permitting program, and its 
smoke management programs for agricultural and forestry burning to 
achieve the RPGs it established for its Class I areas. Idaho included a 
description of these programs in the progress report, which is 
summarized below.
1. BART-Level Controls
    Idaho's original Regional Haze SIP imposed BART-level controls on 
two sources, the #5 Rotary Kiln at the P4 Production (formerly 
Monsanto) Soda Springs facility and the Riley Boiler at The Amalgamated 
Sugar Company (TASCO), Nampa facility. In 2005, P4 Production underwent 
a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) review and installed a lime-
concentrated dual-alkali (LCDA) scrubber on the #5 Rotary Kiln to 
control sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Idaho determined, 
and EPA in its approval agreed, that BART for the #5 Rotary Kiln was an 
emission limit of 143 pounds per hour of SO2 achieved 
through application of the LCDA scrubber. See 76 FR 36329, 36339 (Jun. 
22, 2011).\3\ Idaho also concluded that existing controls were BART for 
the nitrogen oxide (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) 
emissions from the #5 Rotary Kiln. EPA also approved this 
determination. See 76 FR 36329, 36339 (Jun. 22, 2011). The emission 
limits are embodied in federally enforceable permits that Idaho 
continues to administer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The SO2 emissions limit is embodied in Idaho 
Permit T2-2009.0109, which is included in the Docket for this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For TASCO, Idaho determined that flue gas desulfurization and low 
NOX burners with over-fire air were the appropriate control 
technologies for the BART-eligible Riley Boiler. EPA approved BART for 
the Riley Boiler on May 22, 2012 (77 FR 66929). Subsequently, Idaho 
submitted revisions to its Regional Haze SIP that included a revised 
BART determination for the TASCO Nampa facility. Specifically, Idaho's 
revised BART determination included a more stringent NOX 
emission limit, a more stringent PM emission limit, and a BART 
alternative to replace the SO2 BART determination. In 
addition to the more stringent NOX and PM emission limits 
for the Riley Boiler, the BART alternative relied on control of 
NOX emissions from two non-BART eligible boilers at the 
TASCO Nampa facility, as well as taking into account the emission 
reductions resulting from the permanent shutdown of three coal-fired 
pulp dryers. EPA approved Idaho's revised BART determination for the 
TASCO Nampa facility on April 28, 2014. See 79 FR 23273, 23277. The 
BART emissions limits are embodied in a federally enforceable permit 
that went into effect on December 23, 2011. Idaho continues to 
administer this permit.
2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)/Major New Source 
Review (NSR)
    Idaho's progress report states that a key regulatory program for 
addressing visibility impairment from new or modified industrial 
stationary sources is the state's PSD/NSR program. This program 
protects visibility in Class I areas from impacts from new major or 
modified major stationary sources. According to the progress report, 
Idaho's PSD program requires new or major modifications to model the 
emissions impacts on Class I areas within 300 kilometers to determine 
if the change in visibility above natural levels is significant. 
According to the progress report, Idaho continues to implement the PSD/
NSR program.
3. Smoke Management
    In addition, Idaho continues to implement its crop residue and 
burning program. EPA published its approval of Idaho's SIP revisions 
relating to open burning and crop residue disposal requirements on 
August 1, 2008 (73 FR 44915, 44919), March 19, 2013 (78 FR 16760, 
16791), and most recently on June 19, 2018 (83 FR 28382, 28385). The 
compliance rate has improved through education and outreach, and Idaho 
DEQ has hired a meteorologist to guide burn decisions. There have also 
been improvements in the prescribed burning (forestry) program. 
Specifically, Idaho

[[Page 13584]]

DEQ is working closely with the Idaho and Montana Airshed group, and 
Idaho DEQ's smoke manager and meteorologist are involved in the day to 
day burn decisions. Both the crop residue and burning and the 
prescribed burning programs have improved through cooperative 
agreements with the Idaho Department of Lands and the burn permits now 
have specific language requiring burners to comply with Idaho open 
burning rules.

B. Summary of Visibility Conditions

    In addition to the evaluation of control measures, Idaho documented 
the differences between the visibility conditions during the baseline 
period (2000-2004), the first progress period (2005-2009), and the most 
current five-year averaging period (2010-2014). Idaho used data 
available at the time Idaho developed the progress report in 2015. As 
part of our review, the EPA supplemented this information with current 
2012-2016 data, as shown in Table 1.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See document entitled ``visibility data trends'' included in 
the Docket for this action.

                             Table 1--Idaho Class I Area Visibility Conditions on the 20-Percent Most and Least Impaired Day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          First progress     Progress       Most recent        2018
                                                                          Baseline (2001-  period (2005-   report update    data (2012-     reasonable
              IMPROVE monitor                       Class I area          2004) (dv) \5\    2009) (dv)      (2010-2014)     2016) (dv)     progress goal
                                                                                                               (dv)                            (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              20-percent Most Impaired Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CRMO1.................................  Craters of the Moon NM......            14.0            13.6            14.1            14.1           13.06
    SWAT1.................................  Sawtooth Wilderness.........            13.8            14.8            15.7            15.2           13.22
    SULA1.................................  Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness            13.4            17.0            15.0            11.3           12.94
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             20-percent Least Impaired Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CRMO1.................................  Craters of the Moon NM......             4.3             3.4             3.0             2.8             3.9
    SWAT1.................................  Sawtooth Wilderness.........               4             3.8             3.0             2.5             3.8
    SULA1.................................  Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness             2.6             2.5             1.7             1.5             2.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 1, all Class I areas experienced improvements in 
visibility for the 20-percent least impaired days between the baseline 
(2000-2004) and the most recent (2012-2016) visibility periods. 
According to Idaho's progress report, all Class I areas are meeting the 
RPGs for the 20-percent least impaired days. Idaho's progress report 
included an analysis of progress and impediments to progress. Regarding 
the 20-percent most impaired days, according to the most recent 
monitoring data (2012-2016), the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness (SULA1 
monitor) is meeting the RPG for the 20-percent most impaired days. 
However, according to the 2012-2016 data, visibility in the Sawtooth 
Wilderness (SWAT1 monitor) and the Craters of the Moon NM (CRMO1 
monitor) is not meeting the 2018 RPGs for the 20-percent most impaired 
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For all Idaho Class I monitoring sites, monitoring began in 
late 2000; therefore, only three complete years of monitoring data, 
2002-2004, define their baselines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the progress report, visibility has not improved in 
the Sawtooth Wilderness and Craters of the Moon NM due to smoke from 
episodic wildfires in the area. Figures 6, 7, and 8 in the progress 
report show that SO2 and NOX emissions have 
decreased since 2000. In contrast, coarse PM emissions have increased 
during the same period. Figure 14, Figure 15, and Appendix D of the 
progress report show that, even though there has been a steady 
reduction in ammonium sulfate formation since 2000, indicative of a 
reduction in anthropogenic contributions to visibility impairment, 
particulate organic mass has consistently remained the dominant 
contributor to light extinction. The Sawtooth Wilderness and Craters of 
the Moon NM experienced a notable spike in light extinction caused by 
particulate organic mass emissions in 2012, which likely contributed to 
the areas not meeting their RPGs. The 2012 fires potentially impacting 
the Sawtooth Wilderness and Craters of the Moon NM include the Halstead 
Fire (181,000 acres), Mustang Complex (340,600 acres), and the Trinity 
Ridge Fire (146,800 acres).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/fire/201213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Visibility Monitoring Strategy

    The progress report also contained a review of Idaho's visibility 
monitoring strategy. Idaho concluded that the IMPROVE network continues 
to comply with the monitoring requirements in the Regional Haze Rule 
and that no modifications to Idaho's visibility monitoring strategy are 
necessary at this time.

D. Summary of Emissions Reductions

    The Idaho progress report also included a summary of the emissions 
reductions achieved throughout the state from the control measures 
discussed above. Specifically, Idaho identified emissions reductions 
achieved through emissions controls on Idaho BART-eligible sources, 
including the P4 Production and the TASCO Nampa facilities. According 
to Idaho, implementation of BART caused significant reductions in 
emissions at both facilities. Installation of the LCDA scrubber on the 
P4 Production facility reduced SOX emissions by 11,000 tons 
per year. NOX emissions at the TASCO Nampa facility have 
also declined due to compliance with the BART requirements, namely 
implementation of low NOX burners, switching to natural gas, 
and the permanent shutdown of pulp dryers. Specifically, the BART 
alternative for the TASCO Nampa Facility achieved NOX 
emissions reductions of 221 tons per year, SO2 emissions 
reductions of 20.6 tons per year, and PM emissions reductions of 113 
tons per year (78 FR 38872).
    The progress report also discussed improvements in Idaho's smoke 
management programs made during the first planning period, as noted 
above. The progress report summarized changes in emission inventories 
for all major visibility impairing pollutants from point, area, on-road 
mobile, off-road mobile, oil and gas, fugitive and road dust, and 
anthropogenic fire source categories in the state. For these summaries, 
emissions during the baseline years are represented using a

[[Page 13585]]

2002 inventory, which was developed with support from the WRAP for use 
in the original Regional Haze SIP development. Differences between 
inventories are represented as the differences between the 2002 
inventory, the 2008 inventory, and the 2011 inventory which leverages 
recent inventory development work performed by the WRAP for the West-
wide Jump Start Air Quality Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) and 
Deterministic & Empirical Assessment of Smoke's Contribution to Ozone 
Project (DEASCO3) modeling projects.
    The progress report also included an analysis tracking the change 
in emissions since the first progress period and the most recent 
progress period. Specifically, Idaho states that there has been a 
substantial reduction in anthropogenic sources of both SO2 
and NOX. Estimated emissions reductions for SO2 
and NOX are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3, below. These 
reductions are primarily attributed to the BART controls and the Tier 
II reductions in sulfur content of fuels and NOX vehicle 
emission standards. We note that the other visibility impairing 
pollutants (primary organic aerosols, elemental carbon) also generally 
declined as detailed in Chapter 2.3 of the progress report. As shown in 
Table 4 below, emissions increased for fine and coarse particulate 
matter because of a major change to the fugitive road dust calculations 
between 2008 and 2011.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Fine soil and coarse mass decreased for the windblown dust 
inventory comparisons and increased for the combined fugitive/road 
dust inventories. Idaho noted that large variability in changes in 
windblown dust was observed for the contiguous WRAP states, which 
was likely due in large part to enhancements in dust inventory 
methodology, rather than changes in actual emissions. For most 
parameters, especially primary organic aerosols, volatile organic 
compounds, and elemental carbon, natural fire emission inventory 
estimates decreased, and anthropogenic fire estimates increased.

                                  Table 2--Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Sulfur dioxide emissions (tons/year)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       2002            2008            2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................................          17,613           7,490           6,954
Area............................................................           3,280           9,068           2,070
On-Road Mobile..................................................           1,662             339             198
Off-Road Mobile.................................................           3,702             281             122
Fugitive and Road Dust..........................................               4              25              95
Anthropogenic Fire..............................................             895           2,499           2,460
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic.........................................          27,156          19,702          11,899
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Fire....................................................          12,008             852           3,005
Biogenic........................................................               0               0               0
Wind Blown Dust.................................................               0               0               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Natural...............................................          12,008             852           3,005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions.............................................          39,164          20,554          14,904
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 Table 3--Nitrogen Oxides Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Nitrogen oxides emissions (tons/year)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       2002            2008            2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................................          11,487          12,671          11,591
Area............................................................          30,318          19,892           6,205
On-Road Mobile..................................................          44,611          44,556          45,575
Off-Road Mobile.................................................          27,922          14,132          20,900
Fugitive and Road Dust..........................................               5              13              50
Anthropogenic Fire..............................................           3,461          11,368           6,122
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic.........................................         117,804         102,632          90,443
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Fire....................................................          39,401           3,815           7,878
Biogenic........................................................          16,982           4,806           4,459
Wind Blown Dust.................................................               0               0               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Natural...............................................          56,383           8,621          12,337
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 13586]]

 
                                                   All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions.............................................         174,187         111,253         102,780
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 Table 4--Fine Particulate Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fine particulate emissions (tons/year)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       2002            2008            2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................................             305               0             246
Area............................................................           4,749           2,364             408
On-Road Mobile..................................................               0             175             185
Off-Road Mobile.................................................               0              46               0
Fugitive and Road Dust..........................................           4,839          12,564          44,037
Anthropogenic Fire..............................................           1,536           8,358              18
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic.........................................          11,429          23,507          44,894
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Fire....................................................           3,013           2,780              18
Biogenic........................................................               0               0               0
Wind Blown Dust.................................................           5,050           5,286          11,068
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Natural...............................................           8,063           8,066          11,086
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions.............................................          19,492          31,573          55,980
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its progress report, Idaho concluded that the state is making 
adequate progress in improving visibility as a result of actions 
identified in the Regional Haze SIP, as well as actions taken by 
adjoining states, the federal government, the WRAP, and the Western 
States Air Resources Council.

E. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR 51.308(h))

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), if the state determines 
that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive 
revision in order to achieve established goals for visibility 
improvement and emissions reductions, the state must provide to the 
Administrator a negative declaration that further revision of the 
existing implementation plan is not needed at this time. Within the 
progress report, Idaho provided a negative declaration stating that 
further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed. The 
basis for the state's negative declaration is the finding that 
visibility on the 20-percent least impaired days has improved from the 
baseline period, and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Class I area 
attained its 2018 RPGs at the IMPROVE monitor. The Sawtooth Wilderness 
and the Craters of the Moon NM did not meet the 2018 RPGs for the 20-
percent most impaired days at their respective monitors, which Idaho 
demonstrated was due to smoke from wildfires in 2012.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA acknowledged in its approval of Idaho's Regional Haze 
SIP that the overwhelming amount of visibility impairment due to 
fire on the 20-percent most impaired days at Idaho's Class I areas 
is due to natural fire. See 77 FR 66929, 66933. In our approval of 
Idaho's Regional Haze SIP, we agreed with Idaho's conclusion that no 
additional controls on non-BART stationary sources in Idaho were 
reasonable for the first planning period because any visibility 
improvement expected from additional controls would likely be 
minimal due to the outsized influence of wildfires on visibility 
impairment. Id. at 66931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find that Idaho adequately 
addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) in its determination 
that the existing Idaho Regional Haze SIP requires no substantive 
revisions at this time.

F. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (40 CFR 51.308(i))

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i), the state must provide the 
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 
days prior to holding any public hearings on an implementation plan (or 
plan revision). The state must also include a description of how it 
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. The State of Idaho invited 
the FLMs to comment on its draft progress report on January 28, 2016, 
for a 60-day comment period ending March 28, 2016, prior to releasing 
the report for public comment. Idaho included the FLM comment and a 
description of how it addressed the comment in Appendix E of the 
progress report.
    The EPA proposes to find that Idaho has addressed the requirements 
in 40 CFR 51.308(i). Idaho provided a 60-day period for the FLMs to 
comment on the progress report, which was at least 60 days before 
seeking public comments, and provided a summary of these comments and 
responses to these comments in the progress report.

IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the Idaho Regional Haze Progress 
Report submitted to the EPA on June 28, 2016, as meeting the applicable 
requirements of the CAA and Regional Haze Rule, as set forth in 40 CFR 
51.308(g). The EPA proposes to find that the existing

[[Page 13587]]

Regional Haze SIP is adequate to meet the state's visibility goals and 
requires no substantive revision at this time, as set forth in 40 CFR 
51.308(h). We propose to find that Idaho fulfilled the requirements in 
40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding state coordination with FLMs.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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 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 it 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).
    The proposed SIP would not be 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications and 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 
November 9, 2000). Therefore, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Visibility, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 27, 2019.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2019-06739 Filed 4-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P