16722 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under title V. The EPA 

approved Idaho’s title V permitting 

program on October 4, 2001 (66 FR 

50574) with an effective data of 

November 5, 2001. 

EPA analysis: We approved Idaho’s 

title V program on October 4, 2001 (66 

FR 50574) with an effective date of 

November 5, 2001. While Idaho’s 

operating permit program is not 

formally approved into the State’s SIP, 

it is a legal mechanism Idaho can use to 

ensure that Idaho DEQ has sufficient 

resources to support the air program, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

SIP. Before the EPA can grant full 

approval, a state must demonstrate the 

ability to collect adequate fees. Idaho’s 

title V program included a 

demonstration the State will collect a 

fee from title V sources above the 

presumptive minimum in accordance 

with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). In addition, 

Idaho regulations require fees for 

purposes of major and minor NSR 

permitting, as specified in IDAPA 

58.01.01.224–227. Therefore, we are 

proposing to conclude that Idaho has 

satisfied the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/Participation 

by Affected Local Entities 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires 

states to provide for consultation and 

participation in SIP development by 

local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP. 

State submittals: The Idaho submittals 

state that consultation with a variety of 

different state and local organizations is 

a regular part of Idaho DEQ’s process of 

developing SIP revisions. The 

requirements for plan preparation and 

public process include 40 CFR part 51, 

incorporated by reference at IDAPA 

58.01.01.107. Idaho also references rules 

cited under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) 

above. 

EPA analysis: The EPA most recently 

approved IDAPA 58.01.01.107 

(incorporations by reference), which 

incorporates by reference 40 CFR part 

51, Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans, on March 3, 2014 

(79 FR 11711). In addition, we most 

recently approved Idaho permitting 

rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.209 and 

58.01.01.404, which provide 

opportunity and procedures for public 

comment and notice to appropriate 

Federal, state and local agencies, on 

January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217) and 

November 26, 2010 (75 FR 47530). 

Finally, we approved the Idaho rules 

that define transportation conformity 

consultation on April 12, 2001 (66 FR 

18873). Therefore, we are proposing to 

approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

V. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to find that the 

Idaho SIP meets the following CAA 

section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements 

for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 

ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), 

(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are 

also proposing to find that the Idaho SIP 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

and visibility for the 2006 PM2.5 and 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves the state’s law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

the state’s 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to the requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and the EPA notes 

that it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, and Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: March 13, 2014. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06664 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2012–0183, FRL–9908–67– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho: 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the February 14, 2012, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

from Idaho demonstrating that the SIP 

meets the infrastructure requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for lead (Pb) on 

October 15, 2008. The CAA requires that 

each state, after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated, review their 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16723 

1Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards.’’ Memorandum to EPA Air 

Division Directors, Regions I–X, October 14, 2011. 

SIP to ensure that it meets the 

infrastructure requirements necessary to 

implement the new or revised NAAQS. 

The EPA is proposing to find that the 

Idaho SIP meets the CAA infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 25, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2012–0183, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov. 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle WA, 98101. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 

Mailroom, 9th floor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101. Attention: 

Kristin Hall, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, AWT–107. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2012– 

0183. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that 

you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle 

WA, 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at: (206) 553–6357, 

hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Information is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Elements 

III. EPA Approach To Review of 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

IV. Analysis of the State’s Submittal 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised 

the level of the primary and secondary 

Pb NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3) to 0.15 mg/m3. The 

CAA requires SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) be submitted by states within three 

years after promulgation of a new or 

revised standard. CAA sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) require states to 

address basic SIP requirements, 

including emissions inventories, 

monitoring, and modeling to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

standards, so-called ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

requirements. States were required to 

submit such SIPs for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS to the EPA no later than 

October 15, 2011. 

To help states meet this statutory 

requirement, the EPA issued guidance 

to address infrastructure SIP elements 

under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2).1

As noted in the guidance, to the extent 

an existing SIP already meets the CAA 

section 110(a)(2) requirements, states 

may certify that fact via a letter to the 

EPA. The certification should address 

all requirements of the CAA section 

110(a)(2) infrastructure elements as 

applicable for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Such certification should include 

documentation demonstrating a 

correlation between each infrastructure 

element specified at 110(a)(2) and an 

equivalent state statutory authority in 

the existing or submitted SIP. As for all 

SIP submittals, a state should provide 

reasonable public notice of, and an 

opportunity for a public hearing on, the 

certification before it is submitted to the 

EPA. 

CAA section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to the EPA for a new or 

revised NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In the case 

of the 2008 Pb NAAQS, states typically 

have met the basic program elements 

required in CAA section 110(a)(2) 

through earlier SIP submissions. On 

February 14, 2012, the State of Idaho 

made a submittal to the EPA certifying 

that the Idaho SIP meets the CAA 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

The submittal included an analysis of 

Idaho’s SIP as it relates to each section 

of the infrastructure requirements with 

regard to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Idaho 

provided notice and an opportunity for 

public comment on the submittal from 

November 29, 2011 through December 

28, 2011. A notice of public hearing was 

published in the Idaho Statesman on 

November 29, 2011. The State held a 

public hearing on December 28, 2011 in 

Boise, Idaho. No comments or testimony 

were received by the State. We have 

evaluated Idaho’s submittal and 

determined that Idaho met the 

requirements for reasonable notice and 

public hearing under section 110(a)(2) 

of the CAA. 

II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Elements 

CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIP submissions after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated. CAA section 

110(a)(2) lists specific elements that 

states must meet for infrastructure SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. These 

requirements include SIP infrastructure 

elements such as modeling, monitoring, 

and enforcement that are designed to 

assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. The requirements, with 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16724 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2 In accordance with the D.C. Circuit decision in 

EME Homer City, the EPA at this time is not treating 

the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Idaho for 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS as a required SIP submission. 

See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 

F .3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 2013 U.S. 

Lexis 4801 (2013). However, even if the submission 

is not considered to be ‘‘required,’’ the EPA must 

act on the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from 

Idaho because section 110(k)(2) of the CAA requires 

the EPA to act on all SIP submissions. Unless the 

EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise 

modified by the Supreme Court, which granted 

review of the case on June 24, 2013, states are not 

required to submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the 

EPA has quantified their obligations under that 

section. The portions of the SIP submission relating 

to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), in contrast, 

are required. In this notice, we are proposing to act 

on all portions of Idaho’s 110(a)(2)(D) submission. 

3For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

4See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 

25162, at 25163—65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

5The EPA notes that this ambiguity within 

section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that 

various subparts of part D set specific dates for 

submission of certain types of SIP submissions in 

designated nonattainment areas for various 

pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides 

specific dates for submission of emissions 

inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these 

their corresponding CAA subsection, are 

listed below: 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.2

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring system. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated 

nonattainment and meet the applicable 

requirements of part D. 

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

The EPA’s October 14, 2011 guidance 

restated our interpretation that two 

elements identified in CAA section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the threeyear submission deadline of CAA 

section 110(a)(1) because SIPs 

incorporating necessary local 

nonattainment area controls are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather, are 

due at the time the nonattainment area 

plan requirements are due pursuant to 

CAA section 172 and the various 

pollutant specific subparts 2–5 of part 

D. These requirements are: (i) 

submissions required by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection 

refers to a permit program as required in 

part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii) 

submissions required by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D, title I of the CAA. As a result, 

this action does not address 

infrastructure elements related to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to 

nonattainment new source review (NSR) 

or CAA section 110(a)(2)(I). 

Furthermore, the EPA interprets the 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on 

visibility as not being triggered by a new 

NAAQS because the visibility 

requirements in part C, title I of the 

CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS. 

III. EPA Approach To Review of 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

The EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submission from Idaho that addresses 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. The requirement for 

states to make a SIP submission of this 

type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states 

must make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3 

years (or such shorter period as the 

Administrator may prescribe) after the 

promulgation of a national primary 

ambient air quality standard (or any 

revision thereof),’’ and these SIP 

submissions are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

the EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

The EPA has historically referred to 

these SIP submissions made for the 

purpose of satisfying the requirements 

of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 

as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, the EPA 

uses the term to distinguish this 

particular type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by the EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review permit program 

submissions to address the permit 

requirements of CAA, title I, part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.3 The 

EPA therefore believes that while the 

timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) 

is unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, the EPA believes that the list 

of required elements for infrastructure 

SIP submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for the 

EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) 

and section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while the 

EPA has long noted that this literal 

reading of the statute is internally 

inconsistent and would create a conflict 

with the nonattainment provisions in 

part D of title I of the CAA, which 

specifically address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.4 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires the EPA to 

establish a schedule for submission of 

such plans for certain pollutants when 

the Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.5 This ambiguity illustrates 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16725 

specific dates are necessarily later than three years 

after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS. 6See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339 (January 22, 2013) (the EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of the EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR 

4337) (January 22, 2013) (the EPA’s final action on 

the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

7On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to the EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). The EPA proposed 

action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), the EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submittal. 

8For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

9The EPA notes, however, that nothing in the 

CAA requires the EPA to provide guidance or to 

promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and 

requires the submission of infrastructure SIP 

submissions, regardless of whether or not the EPA 

provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such 

submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in 

order to assist states, as appropriate. 

10 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 

11The EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did 

not make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA issued the guidance 

shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to 

review the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer 

City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had 

interpreted the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created 

by ongoing litigation, the EPA elected not to 

provide additional guidance on the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the 

guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, 

whether the EPA elects to provide guidance on a 

particular section has no impact on a state’s CAA 

obligations. 

that rather than apply all the stated 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a 

strict literal sense, the EPA must 

determine which provisions of section 

110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with 

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submission, and whether the 

EPA must act upon such SIP submission 

in a single action. Although section 

110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a 

plan’’ to meet these requirements, the 

EPA interprets the CAA to allow states 

to make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states 

elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements, the EPA can elect to 

act on such submissions either 

individually or in a larger combined 

action.6 Similarly, the EPA interprets 

the CAA to allow it to take action on the 

individual parts of one larger, 

comprehensive infrastructure SIP 

submission for a given NAAQS without 

concurrent action on the entire 

submission. For example, the EPA has 

sometimes elected to act at different 

times on various elements and subelements of the same infrastructure SIP 

submission.7

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) may also arise with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, the EPA notes that not every 

element of section 110(a)(2) would be 

relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in 

the same way, for each new or revised 

NAAQS. The states’ attendant 

infrastructure SIP submissions for each 

NAAQS therefore could be different. For 

example, the monitoring requirements 

that a state might need to meet in its 

infrastructure SIP submission for 

purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could 

be very different for different pollutants, 

for example because the content and 

scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element might 

be very different for an entirely new 

NAAQS than for a minor revision to an 

existing NAAQS.8

The EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

the EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, the EPA also has to 

identify and interpret the relevant 

elements of section 110(a)(2) that 

logically apply to these other types of 

SIP submissions. For example, section 

172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan 

SIP submissions required by part D have 

to meet the ‘‘applicable requirements’’ 

of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, 

attainment plan SIP submissions must 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable 

emission limits and control measures 

and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air 

agency resources and authority. By 

contrast, it is clear that attainment plan 

SIP submissions required by part D 

would not need to meet the portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the 

PSD program required in part C of title 

I of the CAA, because PSD does not 

apply to a pollutant for which an area 

is designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), the EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) 

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, the EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, the EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), 

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, the EPA has elected to 

use guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.9 The EPA most 

recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Guidance).10 The EPA 

developed this document to provide 

states with up-to-date guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs for any new or 

revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, 

the EPA describes the duty of states to 

make infrastructure SIP submissions to 

meet basic structural SIP requirements 

within three years of promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS. The EPA also 

made recommendations about many 

specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) 

that are relevant in the context of 

infrastructure SIP submissions.11 The 

guidance also discusses the 

substantively important issues that are 

germane to certain subsections of 

section 110(a)(2). Significantly, the EPA 

interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP 

submissions need to address certain 

issues and need not address others. 

Accordingly, the EPA reviews each 

infrastructure SIP submission for 

compliance with the applicable 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16726 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

12By contrast, the EPA notes that if a state were 

to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption for excess emissions during 

SSM events, then the EPA would need to evaluate 

that provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

13For example, the EPA issued a SIP call to Utah 

to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related 

to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 

statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), 

as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, the EPA reviews infrastructure 

SIP submissions to ensure that the 

state’s SIP appropriately addresses the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

and section 128. The 2013 Guidance 

explains the EPA’s interpretation that 

there may be a variety of ways by which 

states can appropriately address these 

substantive statutory requirements, 

depending on the structure of an 

individual state’s permitting or 

enforcement program (e.g., whether 

permits and enforcement orders are 

approved by a multi-member board or 

by a head of an executive agency). 

However they are addressed by the 

state, the substantive requirements of 

section 128 are necessarily included in 

the EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure 

SIP submissions because section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, the EPA’s review 

of infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C and the EPA’s PSD 

regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions 

necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and NSR 

pollutants, including greenhouse gases. 

By contrast, structural PSD program 

requirements do not include provisions 

that are not required under the EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are 

merely available as an option for the 

state, such as the option to provide 

grandfathering of complete permit 

applications with respect to the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter 

optional provisions are types of 

provisions the EPA considers irrelevant 

in the context of an infrastructure SIP 

action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, 

however, the EPA’s review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission focuses 

on assuring that the state’s SIP meets 

basic structural requirements. For 

example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, 

inter alia, the requirement that states 

have a program to regulate minor new 

sources. Thus, the EPA evaluates 

whether the state has an EPA-approved 

minor new source review program and 

whether the program addresses the 

pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In 

the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, however, 

the EPA does not think it is necessary 

to conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

the EPA does not believe that an action 

on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is necessarily the 

appropriate type of action in which to 

address possible deficiencies in a state’s 

existing SIP. These issues include: (i) 

Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions from sources during periods 

of startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

that may be contrary to the CAA and the 

EPA’s policies addressing such excess 

emissions (‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that 

may be contrary to the CAA because 

they purport to allow revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits while 

limiting public process or not requiring 

further approval by the EPA; and (iii) 

existing provisions for PSD programs 

that may be inconsistent with current 

requirements of the EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR 

Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007). Thus, the EPA 

believes it may approve an 

infrastructure SIP submission without 

scrutinizing the totality of the existing 

SIP for such potentially deficient 

provisions and may approve the 

submission even if it is aware of such 

existing provisions.12 It is important to 

note that the EPA’s approval of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission should 

not be construed as explicit or implicit 

re-approval of any existing potentially 

deficient provisions that relate to the 

three specific issues just described. 

The EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

The EPA believes that this approach to 

the review of a particular infrastructure 

SIP submission is appropriate, because 

it would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

110(a)(2) as requiring review of each 

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and the EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when the EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. The EPA believes that 

a better approach is for states and the 

EPA to focus attention on those 

elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 

most likely to warrant a specific SIP 

revision due to the promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, the EPA’s 2013 

Guidance gives simpler 

recommendations with respect to 

carbon monoxide than other NAAQS 

pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP 

submission for any future new or 

revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to 

address the visibility prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Finally, the EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides 

other avenues and mechanisms to 

address specific substantive deficiencies 

in existing SIPs. These other statutory 

tools allow the EPA to take 

appropriately tailored action, depending 

upon the nature and severity of the 

alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) 

authorizes the EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ 

whenever the EPA determines that a 

state’s SIP is substantially inadequate to 

attain or maintain the NAAQS, to 

mitigate interstate transport, or to 

otherwise comply with the CAA.13

Section 110(k)(6) authorizes the EPA to 

correct errors in past actions, such as 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16727 

14The EPA has used this authority to correct 

errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to 

PSD programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). The EPA has 

previously used its authority under CAA section 

110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions 

that the Agency determined it had approved in 

error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 

FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American 

Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada 

SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) 

(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 

(November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and 

Nevada SIPs). 

15See, e.g., the EPA’s disapproval of a SIP 

submission from Colorado on the grounds that it 

would have included a director’s discretion 

provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, 

including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 

42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed 

disapproval of director’s discretion provisions); 76 

FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such 

provisions). 

16For further description of the EPA’s SSM 

Policy, see, e.g., a memorandum dated September 

20, 1999, titled ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Policy 

Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown,’’ from Steven A. Herman, 

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Also, 

the EPA issued a proposed action on February 12, 

2013, titled ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response 

to Petition for Rulemaking: Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions 

Applying to excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction.’’ This 

rulemaking responds to a petition for rulemaking 

filed by the Sierra Club that concerns SSM 

provisions in 39 states’ SIPs (February 22, 2013, 78 

FR 12460). 

past approvals of SIP submissions.14

Significantly, the EPA’s determination 

that an action on a state’s infrastructure 

SIP submission is not the appropriate 

time and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude the EPA’s subsequent reliance 

on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as 

part of the basis for action to correct 

those deficiencies at a later time. For 

example, although it may not be 

appropriate to require a state to 

eliminate all existing inappropriate 

director’s discretion provisions in the 

course of acting on an infrastructure SIP 

submission, the EPA believes that 

section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the 

statutory bases that EPA relies upon in 

the course of addressing such deficiency 

in a subsequent action.15

IV. Analysis of the State’s Submittal 

110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other 

Control Measures 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limits and other control measures, 

means or techniques (including 

economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance, as may 

be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of the CAA. 

State submittal: Idaho’s submittal 

cites an overview of the State air quality 

laws and regulations including portions 

of the Idaho Environmental Protection 

and Health Act (EPHA) and the Rules 

for the Control of Air Pollution located 

in the Idaho Administrative Procedures 

Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01. The Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) annually updates, and submits to 

the EPA for incorporation by reference, 

all NAAQS and updates to 40 CFR part 

51, Appendix W—Guidelines on Air 

Quality Models. Relevant laws include 

Idaho Code Section 39–105(3)(d) which 

provides Idaho DEQ with authority to 

supervise and administer a system to 

safeguard air quality, and Idaho Code 

Section 39–115 which provides Idaho 

DEQ with specific authority for the 

issuance of air quality permits. Specific 

regulations referenced in the State’s 

submittal include IDAPA 58.01.01.107.3 

(incorporation by reference of federal 

regulations), IDAPA 58.01.01.200–228 

(permit to construct rules), IDAPA 

58.01.01.400–410 (operating permit 

rules), IDAPA 58.01.01.600–623 (control 

of open burning), IDAPA 58.01.01.650– 

651 (control of fugitive emissions), 

IDAPA 58.01.01.625 (visible emissions 

requirements and testing), and IDAPA 

58.01.01.460–461 (banking of 

emissions). 

EPA analysis: Idaho’s SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS, subject to the 

following clarifications. First, this 

infrastructure element does not require 

the submittal of regulations or emission 

limitations developed specifically for 

attaining the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Furthermore, the State has no areas 

designated nonattainment for the 2008 

Pb NAAQS and generally regulates 

emissions of Pb through its SIPapproved major and minor new source 

review (NSR) permitting programs, in 

addition to rules for the control of open 

burning, fugitive emissions, activities 

that generate visible emissions, and 

emissions banking. 

The State of Idaho incorporates by 

reference the Federal NAAQS 

promulgated as of July 1, 2012, 

including the 2008 Pb NAAQS, at 

IDAPA 58.01.01.107. The EPA most 

recently approved IDAPA 58.01.01.107 

on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). This 

section also incorporates by reference 

Federal requirements for preparation, 

adoption, and submittal of 

implementation plans, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration program 

provisions, and ambient air monitoring. 

The EPA most recently approved 

changes to the State’s major and minor 

NSR permitting rules on March 3, 2014 

(79 FR 11711). The State’s NSR rules 

incorporate the Federal nonattainment 

NSR regulations and Federal PSD 

regulations at IDAPA 58.01.204 and 

IDAPA 58.01.01.205 respectively. In 

addition, the State’s Tier II operating 

permit rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.400–410 

require that to obtain an operating 

permit, the applicant must demonstrate 

the source will not cause or significantly 

contribute to a violation of any ambient 

air quality standard. IDAPA 

58.01.01.401.03 provides Idaho DEQ 

authority to require an operating permit 

if the department determines emission 

rate reductions are necessary to attain or 

maintain any ambient air quality 

standard or applicable PSD increment. 

In addition to the permitting rules 

described above, the State has 

promulgated rules to limit and control 

emissions from open burning (IDAPA 

58.01.01.600–623), fugitive dust (IDAPA 

58.01.01.650–651), and activities that 

generate visible emissions (IDAPA 

58.01.01.625). These rules include 

emission limits, control measures, and 

opacity limits. The State has also 

promulgated rules addressing banking 

of emissions at IDAPA 58.01.01.460– 

461. Based on the above analysis, the 

EPA is proposing to approve the Idaho 

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

We note that, in this action, we are 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

any existing State provisions with 

regard to excess emissions during 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

(SSM) of operations at a facility. The 

EPA believes that a number of states 

may have SSM provisions that are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance 16 and the EPA plans to 

address such state regulations. In the 

meantime, the EPA encourages any state 

having a deficient SSM provision to take 

steps to correct it as soon as possible. 

In addition, we are not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing 

State rules with regard to director’s 

discretion or variance provisions. The 

EPA believes that a number of states 

may have such provisions that are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance (52 FR 45109), November 24, 

1987, and the EPA plans to take action 

in the future to address such state 

regulations. In the meantime, we 

encourage any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision that is 

contrary to the CAA and the EPA 

guidance to take steps to correct the 

deficiency as soon as possible. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16728 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

17 Idaho Air Monitoring Network Plan Approval 

Letter, dated March 10, 2014. 

110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring/Data System 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires 

SIPs to include provisions to provide for 

establishment and operation of ambient 

air quality monitors, collecting and 

analyzing ambient air quality data, and 

making these data available to the EPA 

upon request. 

State submittal: The Idaho submittal 

references IDAPA 58.01.01.107 and 

IDAPA 58.01.01.576.05 in response to 

this requirement. These rules 

incorporate by reference 40 CFR part 50, 

National Primary and Secondary Air 

Quality Standards; 40 CFR part 51, 

Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans; 40 CFR part 52, 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; 40 CFR part 53, 

Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and 

Equivalent Methods; and 40 CFR part 

58, Appendix B Ambient Air Quality 

Surveillance Quality Assurance 

Requirements for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration. The State 

submittal states that these rules give the 

State authority to implement ambient 

air monitoring surveillance systems in 

accordance with the requirements of 

referenced sections of the CAA. The 

collected information is analyzed and 

submitted by the State to the EPA. 

EPA analysis: A comprehensive air 

quality monitoring plan, intended to 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 

was submitted by Idaho on January 15, 

1980 (40 CFR 52.670) and approved by 

the EPA on July 28, 1982. This air 

quality monitoring plan has been 

subsequently updated and approved by 

the EPA on March 10, 2014.17 This 

approved plan meets the EPA’s revised 

ambient monitoring requirements for Pb 

promulgated on December 14, 2010 (75 

FR 81126) as specified in 40 CFR part 

58. Idaho provides the State’s annual 

network monitoring plan, air quality 

monitoring data summaries, and a map 

of the State air monitoring network at: 

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/

monitoring/monitoring-network.aspx. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the Idaho SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(B) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(C): Program for Enforcement 

of Control Measures 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires 

states to include a program providing 

for enforcement of all SIP measures and 

the regulation of construction of new or 

modified stationary sources, including a 

program to meet PSD and 

nonattainment NSR requirements. 

State submittal: The Idaho submittal 

refers to Idaho Code Section 39–108 

which provides Idaho DEQ with 

authority to enforce both 

administratively and civilly the Idaho 

EPHA, or any rule, permit or order 

promulgated pursuant to the EPHA. 

Criminal enforcement is authorized at 

Idaho Code Section 39–109. Emergency 

order authority, similar to that under 

Section 303 of the CAA, is located at 

Idaho Code Section 39–112. The Idaho 

submittal also refers to laws and 

regulations requiring stationary source 

compliance with the NAAQS discussed 

in the response to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A). 

The Idaho submittal also refers to the 

annual incorporation by reference (IBR) 

rulemaking which updates the Idaho 

SIP to include Federal changes to the 

NAAQS and PSD program. The 

submittal states that the annual IBR 

updates, along with IDAPA sections 

200–228 (permitting requirements for 

new and modified sources) and 575–587 

(air quality standards and area 

classification), provide Idaho DEQ with 

authority to implement the PSD and 

NSR program. 

EPA analysis: With regards to the 

requirement to have a program 

providing for enforcement of all SIP 

measures, we are proposing to find that 

the Idaho code provisions described 

above provide Idaho DEQ with authority 

to enforce the Idaho EPHA, air quality 

regulations, permits, and orders 

promulgated pursuant to the EPHA. 

Idaho DEQ staffs and maintains an 

enforcement program to ensure 

compliance with SIP requirements. 

Idaho DEQ may issue emergency orders 

to reduce or discontinue emission of air 

contaminants where air emissions cause 

or contribute to imminent and 

substantial endangerment. Enforcement 

cases may be referred to the State 

Attorney General’s Office for civil or 

criminal enforcement. Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) related to 

enforcement for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

To generally meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with regards to 

the regulation of construction of new or 

modified stationary sources, a state is 

required to have PSD, nonattainment 

NSR, and minor NSR permitting 

programs adequate to implement the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. As explained above, 

we are not in this action evaluating 

nonattainment related provisions, such 

as the nonattainment NSR program 

required by part D, Title I of the CAA. 

In addition, Idaho has no designated 

nonattainment areas for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

We most recently approved revisions 

to Idaho’s PSD program on March 3, 

2014 (79 FR 11711), including updates 

of the Idaho PSD program for purposes 

of fine particulate matter 

implementation in attainment and 

unclassifiable areas. Previously on July 

17, 2012 (77 FR 41916), we approved a 

revision to the Idaho SIP to provide 

authority to implement the PSD 

permitting program with respect to 

greenhouse gas emissions. The Idaho 

PSD program implements the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS and incorporates the Federal 

PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 

52.21 by reference as of July 1, 2012. As 

a result, we are proposing to approve 

the Idaho SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) with regards to PSD for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. 

The EPA notes that on January 4, 

2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 

District of Columbia, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 

F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), issued a judgment 

that remanded two of the EPA’s rules 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

including the ‘‘Implementation of New 

Source Review (NSR) Program for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5),’’ (73 FR 28321, 

May 16, 2008) (2008 PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule). The court 

ordered the EPA to ‘‘repromulgate these 

rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent 

with this opinion.’’Id. at 437. Subpart 4 

of part D, title I of the CAA establishes 

additional provisions for particulate 

matter nonattainment areas. The 2008 

PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule 

addressed by the court’s decision 

promulgated NSR requirements for 

implementation of PM2.5 in both 

nonattainment areas (nonattainment 

NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable 

areas (PSD). As the requirements of 

subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment 

areas, the EPA does not consider the 

portions of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule that address 

requirements for PM2.5 attainment and 

unclassifiable areas to be affected by the 

court’s opinion. Moreover, the EPA does 

not anticipate the need to revise any 

PSD requirements promulgated in the 

2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule in 

order to comply with the Court’s 

decision. Accordingly, the EPA’s 

proposed approval of elements 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), with 

respect to the PSD requirements, does 

not conflict with the Court’s opinion. 

The EPA interprets the CAA section 

110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure 

submittals due three years after 

adoption or revision of a NAAQS to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16729 

exclude nonattainment area 

requirements, including requirements 

associated with a nonattainment NSR 

program. Instead, these elements are 

typically referred to as nonattainment 

SIP or attainment plan elements, which 

are due by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 

under part D, extending as far as ten 

years following designations for some 

elements. 

In addition, on January 22, 2013, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 703 

F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013), issued a 

judgment that, inter alia, vacated the 

provisions adding the PM2.5 Significant 

Monitoring Concentration to the Federal 

regulations, at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) 

and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), that were 

promulgated as part of the ‘‘Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC); Final Rule’’ (2010 PSD PM2.5

Implementation Rule) (75 FR 64864). In 

its decision, the court held that the EPA 

did not have the authority to use SMCs 

to exempt permit applicants from the 

statutory requirement in section 

165(e)(2) of the CAA that ambient 

monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in 

all PSD permit applications. Thus, 

although the PM2.5 SMC was not a 

required element of a state’s PSD 

program, were a state PSD program that 

contains such a provision to use that 

provision to issue new permits without 

requiring ambient PM2.5 monitoring 

data, such application of the vacated 

SMC would be inconsistent with the 

Court’s opinion and the requirements of 

section 165(e)(2) of the CAA. 

This decision also, on the EPA’s 

request, vacated and remanded to the 

EPA for further consideration the 

portions of the 2010 PSD PM2.5

Implementation Rule that revised 40 

CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 related to 

SILs for PM2.5. The EPA requested this 

vacatur and remand of two of the three 

provisions in the EPA regulations that 

contain SILs for PM2.5, because the 

wording of these two SIL provisions (40 

CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 

52.21(k)(2)) is inconsistent with the 

explanation of when and how SILs 

should be used by permitting authorities 

that we provided in the preamble to the 

Federal Register publication when we 

promulgated these provisions. The third 

SIL provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was 

not vacated and remains in effect. The 

Court’s decision does not affect the PSD 

increments for PM2.5 promulgated as 

part of the 2010 PSD PM2.5

Implementation Rule. 

Because of the vacatur of the EPA 

regulations as they relate to the PM2.5

SILs and SMC, in our previous action on 

March 3, 2014, we disapproved Idaho’s 

incorporation by reference of the 

vacated provisions into the Idaho SIP 

(79 FR 11711). This action takes no 

additional action with respect to those 

SIP provisions that were previously 

disapproved. In this action we are 

proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) as 

those elements relate to a 

comprehensive PSD program. The EPA 

recently amended its regulations to 

remove the vacated PM2.5 SILs and SMC 

provisions from the PSD regulations 

(December 9, 2013, 78 FR 73698). The 

EPA will initiate a separate rulemaking 

in the future regarding the PM2.5 SILs 

that will address the Court’s remand. In 

the meantime, the EPA is advising states 

to begin preparations to remove the 

vacated provisions from state PSD 

regulations. 

With regard to the minor NSR 

requirement of this element, we have 

determined that the Idaho minor NSR 

program adopted pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA regulates 

emissions of Pb. Based on the foregoing, 

we are proposing to approve the Idaho 

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(D): Interstate Transport 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

state SIPs to include provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). 

Further, this section requires state SIPs 

to include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration (PSD) of air 

quality, or from interfering with 

measures required to protect visibility 

(i.e. measures to address regional haze) 

in any state (CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)). 

State submittal: As suggested by the 

EPA’s October 14, 2011 guidance, Idaho 

submitted an assessment as to whether 

or not emissions from Pb sources 

located in close proximity to the State’s 

borders have emissions that impact 

neighboring states such that they 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in those states. The Idaho 

submittal includes an inventory of 

Idaho Pb sources from the 2008 National 

Emissions Inventory, in addition to a 

map of the largest Pb sources. The 

submittal states that all Idaho Pb 

sources emit well below 0.5 tons per 

year, and that Pb sources are very 

dispersed and far away from the nearest 

designated Pb nonattainment areas. The 

submittal concludes that Idaho’s very 

small Pb emission sources, combined 

with the distance and terrain between 

these sources and the closest Pb 

nonattainment areas, indicate that Idaho 

is not causing or contributing to any Pb 

nonattainment or maintenance issues or 

interfering with any control measures in 

applicable implementation plans in 

other states. 

The Idaho submittal further states that 

East Helena, Montana, is the only 

designated Pb nonattainment area in 

states surrounding Idaho. Although in 

1992 East Helena was designated 

nonattainment for the 1978 Pb NAAQS, 

the primary source of Pb emissions in 

East Helena was the local smelter, 

which shut down in 2001. In 2011, the 

entire state of Montana was designated 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 

Pb NAAQS, the level of which is an 

order of magnitude lower than the level 

of the 1978 NAAQS. The next closest 

designated Pb nonattainment area is 

located in Los Angeles, California. The 

State submittal references a South Coast 

Air Quality Management District Pb 

Monitoring Network Plan which 

assessed major sources of Pb emissions 

in Los Angeles, and found that modeled 

Pb concentrations dropped to low levels 

within 250–500 meters of the sources. 

With regard to provisions prohibiting 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

the submittal references Idaho’s SIPapproved PSD program. Finally, with 

regard to visibility, the Idaho submittal 

references the Idaho regional haze SIP 

submitted to the EPA on October 25, 

2010, and the EPA’s final Pb NAAQS 

Rule promulgated on November 12, 

2008 that noted Pb particulate does not 

transport over long distances (73 FR 

66964). 

EPA analysis: The EPA believes, as 

noted in the October 14, 2011 guidance, 

that the physical properties of Pb 

prevent Pb emissions from experiencing 

the same travel or formation phenomena 

as fine particulate matter or ozone. More 

specifically, there is a sharp decrease in 

Pb concentrations, at least in the coarse 

fraction, as the distance from a Pb 

source increases. Accordingly, while it 

may be possible for a source in a state 

to emit Pb in a location and in 

quantities that may contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16730 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

18Analysis by Mark Schmidt, OAQPS. ‘‘Ambient 

Pb’s Contribution to Class 1 Area Visibility 

Impairment,’’ November 7, 2011. 

interfere with maintenance by, any 

other state, the EPA anticipates that this 

would be a rare situation, e.g., where 

large sources are in close proximity to 

state boundaries. The EPA’s experience 

with initial Pb designations suggests 

that sources that emit less than 0.5 tons 

per year or that are located more than 

two miles from a state border generally 

appear unlikely to contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in 

another state. The Idaho submittal 

indicates that the largest sources of Pb 

emissions in Idaho emit well below 0.5 

tons per year, and are located greater 

than two miles from the state border. As 

a result, the EPA believes that the Idaho 

submittal provides a reasonable basis to 

conclude that Idaho sources of Pb 

emissions do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2008 

Pb NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, 

we are proposing to approve the Idaho 

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

The EPA believes that the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) PSD subelement is satisfied where new major 

sources and major modifications in 

Idaho are subject to a SIP-approved PSD 

program that satisfactorily implements 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS. We most recently 

approved revisions to the Idaho PSD 

program on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 

11711), updating the program for 

purposes of fine particulate matter 

NAAQS implementation in attainment 

and unclassifiable areas. On July 17, 

2012 (77 FR 41916), we approved a 

revision to the Idaho SIP to provide 

authority to implement the PSD 

permitting program with respect to 

greenhouse gas emissions. The Idaho 

PSD program implements the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS and incorporates the Federal 

PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 

52.21 by reference as of July 1, 2012. We 

believe that our proposed approval of 

element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is not affected 

by recent court vacaturs of Federal PSD 

implementing regulations. Please see 

our discussion at section 110(a)(2)(C). 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the Idaho SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with regards to PSD 

for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

The EPA believes, as noted in the 

October 14, 2011 guidance, that with 

regard to the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility sub-element, 

significant impacts from Pb emissions 

from stationary sources are expected to 

be limited to short distances from the 

source and most, if not all Pb stationary 

sources, are located at distances from 

Class I areas such that visibility impacts 

would be negligible. Although Pb can be 

a component of coarse and fine 

particles, Pb generally comprises a small 

fraction of coarse and fine particles. 

Furthermore, when evaluating the 

extent that Pb could impact visibility, 

Pb-related visibility impacts were found 

to be insignificant (e.g., less that 

0.10%).18 Where a state’s regional haze 

SIP has been approved as meeting all 

current obligations, a state may rely 

upon those provisions in support of its 

demonstration that is satisfies the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it relates to 

visibility. 

The Idaho submittal points to the 

Idaho regional haze SIP, submitted on 

October 25, 2010, which addresses 

visibility impacts across states within 

the region. On June 9, 2011, we 

approved a SIP revision which provides 

Idaho DEQ authority to address regional 

haze and to implement best available 

retrofit technology (BART) requirements 

(76 FR 33651). Subsequently on June 22, 

2011, we approved portions of the Idaho 

regional haze SIP, including the 

requirements for BART (76 FR 36329). 

We approved the remainder of the Idaho 

regional haze SIP on November 8, 2012 

(77 FR 66929). The EPA is proposing to 

find that as a result of the prior approval 

of the Idaho regional haze SIP, the Idaho 

SIP contains adequate provisions to 

address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility 

requirements with respect to the 2008 

Pb NAAQS. 

Interstate and International transport 

provisions: CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires SIPs to include provisions 

insuring compliance with the applicable 

requirements of CAA sections 126 and 

115 (relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement). 

Specifically, CAA section 126(a) 

requires new or modified major sources 

to notify neighboring states of potential 

impacts from the source. 

State submittal: The Idaho submittal 

references the Idaho SIP-approved PSD 

program. The submittal also references 

IDAPA 58.01.01.209 (procedures for 

issuing permits) which provides notice 

and comment procedures for various 

permit actions with regard to the public 

and to appropriate Federal, state, 

international, and local agencies. 

EPA analysis: We most recently 

approved revisions to the Idaho PSD 

program on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 

11711), updating the program for 

purposes of fine particulate matter 

NAAQS implementation in attainment 

and unclassifiable areas. On July 17, 

2012, the EPA approved a revision to 

the Idaho SIP to provide authority to 

implement the PSD permitting program 

with respect to greenhouse gas 

emissions (77 FR 41916). The Idaho PSD 

program implements the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS and incorporates the Federal 

PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 

52.21 by reference as of July 1, 2012. 

IDAPA 58.01.01.209 (procedures for 

issuing permits) includes required 

procedures for issuing permits for new 

sources, including procedures for public 

processes, and notice to appropriate 

Federal, state and local agencies, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Federal PSD program. Idaho issues 

notice of its draft permits and 

neighboring states consistently receive 

copies of those drafts. The State also has 

no pending obligations under section 

115 or 126(b) of the CAA. Therefore, we 

are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP 

as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires 

states to provide (i) necessary 

assurances that the state will have 

adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under state law to carry out 

the SIP (and is not prohibited by any 

provision of Federal or state law from 

carrying out the SIP or portion thereof), 

(ii) requires that the state comply with 

the requirements respecting state boards 

under CAA section 128 and (iii) 

necessary assurances that, where the 

state has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality 

for the implementation of any SIP 

provision, the state has responsibility 

for ensuring adequate implementation 

of such SIP provision. 

State submittal: The Idaho submittal 

refers to specific Idaho statutory 

authority including: Idaho Code 39–105, 

which lays out the powers and duties of 

Idaho DEQ’s director; Idaho Code 39– 

106, which gives the Idaho DEQ 

Director authority to hire personnel to 

carry out duties of the department; 

Idaho Code 39–107, which establishes 

the State’s Board of Environmental 

Quality; Idaho Code 39–107B which 

establishes the Department of 

Environmental Quality Fund to receive 

appropriated funds, transfers from the 

general fund, Federal grants, fees for 

services, permitting fees and other 

program income; and Idaho Code 39– 

129, which provides authority for Idaho 

DEQ to enter into binding agreements 

with local governments that are 

enforceable as orders. 

EPA analysis: We are proposing to 

find that the above-referenced 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16731 

provisions provide Idaho DEQ with 

adequate authority to carry out SIP 

obligations with respect to the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS as required by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i). With respect to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), we previously 

approved a revision to the Idaho SIP for 

purposes of meeting CAA section 128 

on October 24, 2013 (78 FR 63394). We 

are proposing to find that Idaho has 

provided necessary assurances that, 

where the State has relied on a local or 

regional government, agency, or 

instrumentality for the implementation 

of any SIP provision, the State has 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of the SIP with regards 

to the 2008 Pb NAAQS as required by 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii). Therefore 

we are proposing to approve the Idaho 

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source 

Monitoring System 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) 

the installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources, (ii) periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emissions-related data from such 

sources, and (iii) correlation of such 

reports by the state agency with any 

emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to the CAA, which 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

State submittal: The Idaho submittal 

states that Idaho statutes and regulations 

provide DEQ with authority to monitor 

stationary source emissions for 

compliance purposes and make them 

available to the public. The submittal 

references the following regulatory 

provisions: IDAPA 58.01.01.121, which 

outlines the authority of Idaho DEQ to 

require monitoring, recordkeeping and 

periodic reporting related to source 

compliance; IDAPA 58.01.01.122, which 

provides Idaho DEQ authority to issue 

information orders and orders to 

conduct source emissions monitoring, 

record keeping, reporting and other 

requirements; and IDAPA 58.01.01.157, 

which outlines test methods and 

procedures for source testing and 

reporting to the Idaho DEQ. 

EPA analysis: The provisions cited by 

the Idaho submittal establish 

compliance requirements for sources 

subject to major and minor source 

permitting to monitor emissions, keep 

and report records, and collect ambient 

air monitoring data. The provisions 

cited by the submittal also provide 

Idaho DEQ authority to issue orders to 

collect additional information as needed 

for Idaho DEQ to ascertain compliance. 

In addition, IDAPA 58.01.01.211 

(conditions for permits to construct) and 

58.01.01.405 (conditions for tier II 

operating permits) provide Idaho DEQ 

authority to establish permit conditions 

requiring instrumentation to monitor 

and record emissions data, and 

instrumentation for ambient monitoring 

to determine the effect emissions from 

the stationary source or facility may 

have, or are having, on the air quality 

in any area affected by the stationary 

source or facility. This information is 

made available to the public through 

public processes outlined at IDAPA 

58.01.01.209 (procedures for issuing 

permits) for permits to construct and 

58.01.01.404 (procedures for issuing 

permits) for Tier II operating permits. 

Additionally, Idaho is required to 

submit emissions data to the EPA for 

purposes of the National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA’s 

central repository for air emissions data. 

The EPA published the Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 

2008, which modified the requirements 

for collecting and reporting air 

emissions data (73 FR 76539). The 

AERR shortened the time states had to 

report emissions data from 17 to 12 

months, giving states one calendar year 

to submit emissions data. All states are 

required to submit a comprehensive 

emissions inventory every three years 

and report emissions for certain larger 

sources annually through the EPA’s 

online Emissions Inventory System. 

States report emissions data for the six 

criteria pollutants and their associated 

precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon 

monoxide, particulate matter, and 

volatile organic compounds. Many 

states also voluntarily report emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants. The EPA 

compiles the emissions data, 

supplementing it where necessary, and 

releases it to the general public through 

the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

chief/eiinformation.html. 

Based on the analysis above, we are 

proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Episodes 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires 

states to provide for authority to address 

activities causing imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health, including adequate contingency 

plans to implement the emergency 

episode provisions in their SIPs. 

State submittal: The Idaho submittal 

cites Idaho air quality laws and 

regulations which provide authority and 

rules for identifying air pollution 

emergency episode contingency plans 

and abatement strategies. Relevant 

sections include Idaho Code Section 39– 

112, which provides emergency order 

authority; and IDAPA 58.01.01.550–561, 

the air pollution emergency rules 

section in the Idaho SIP. 

EPA analysis: As noted in the October 

14, 2011 guidance, based on the EPA’s 

experience to date with the Pb NAAQS 

and designating Pb nonattainment areas, 

the EPA expects that an emergency 

episode associated with Pb emissions 

would be unlikely and, if it were to 

occur, would be the result of a 

malfunction or other emergency 

situation at a relatively large source of 

Pb. Accordingly, the EPA believes that 

the central components of a contingency 

plan would be to reduce emissions from 

the source at issue and public 

communication as needed. We note that 

40 CFR part 51, subpart H (51.150– 

51.152) and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 

L do not apply to Pb. 

Section 303 of the CAA provides 

authority to the EPA Administrator to 

restrain any source from causing or 

contribution to emissions which present 

an ‘‘imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health or 

welfare, or the environment.’’ We find 

that Idaho Code Section 112 provides 

the Idaho DEQ Director with 

comparable authority. 

The Idaho air pollution emergency 

rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.550–561 were 

previously approved by the EPA on 

January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217). In 

addition, the EPA approved IDAPA 

58.01.01.562 (specific emergency 

episode abatement plans for point 

sources) on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 

2217). This provision requires that 

specific point sources adopt and 

implement their own emergency 

episode abatement plans in accordance 

with the criteria set forth in IDAPA 

58.01.01.551 through 556. Accordingly, 

we are proposing to approve the Idaho 

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP Revisions 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that 

SIPs provide for revision of such plan (i) 

from time to time as may be necessary 

to take account of revisions of such 

national primary or secondary ambient 

air quality standard or the availability of 

improved or more expeditious methods 

of attaining such standard, and (ii), 

except as provided in paragraph 

110(a)(3)(C), whenever the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16732 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Administrator finds on the basis of 

information available to the 

Administrator that the SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS which it implements or to 

otherwise comply with any additional 

requirements under the CAA. 

State submittal: The Idaho submittal 

refers to Idaho Code Section 39–105(2) 

and (3)(d) which provides Idaho DEQ 

with authority to revise rules, in 

accordance with Idaho administrative 

procedures for rulemaking, to meet 

national ambient air quality standards 

as incorporated by reference in IDAPA 

58.01.01.107. The submittal also refers 

to provisions at IDAPA 58.01.01.575– 

.587, which include area classifications, 

designations, PSD classifications, and 

references to the State’s incorporation 

by reference of the Federal NAAQS and 

Federal PSD increments. 

EPA analysis: We find that Idaho has 

adequate authority to regularly update 

the SIP to take into account revisions of 

the NAAQS and other related regulatory 

changes. In practice, the State regularly 

submits SIP revisions to the EPA to 

revise the SIP for recent Federal 

regulatory changes. We most recently 

approved revisions to the Idaho SIP on 

March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711), April 3, 

2013 (78 FR 20001), and March 19, 2013 

(78 FR 16790). Accordingly, we are 

proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment Area Plan 

Revision Under Part D 

There are two elements identified in 

CAA section 110(a)(2) not governed by 

the three-year submission deadline of 

CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs 

incorporating necessary local 

nonattainment area controls are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but are rather 

due at the time of the nonattainment 

area plan requirements pursuant to 

section 172 and the various pollutant 

specific subparts 2–5 of part D. These 

requirements are: (i) Submissions 

required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to 

the extent that subsection refers to a 

permit program as required in part D, 

title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions 

required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which 

pertain to the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D, title I of the 

CAA. As a result, this action does not 

address infrastructure elements related 

to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect 

to nonattainment NSR or CAA section 

110(a)(2)(I). 

110(a)(2)(J): Consultation With 

Government Officials 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires 

states to provide a process for 

consultation with local governments 

and Federal Land Managers carrying out 

NAAQS implementation requirements 

pursuant to CAA section 121. CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires 

states to notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and to enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states 

to meet applicable requirements of Part 

C, title I of the CAA related to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

and visibility protection. 

State submittal: The Idaho submittal 

refers to laws and regulations relating to 

authority to carry out the PSD part C 

requirements and the consultation 

process and notification to the public, 

the EPA and Federal Land Managers. 

Specific provisions referenced include 

IDAPA 58.01.01.209, 364, and 404 

which provide for public processes for 

SIPs and permitting under IDAPA 

58.01.01.200–223 (permit to construct 

rules); Idaho Code 39–129 which 

provides Idaho DEQ authority to enter 

into agreements with local governments; 

Idaho Code 39–105.03(c) which 

promotes outreach with local 

governments; IDAPA 58.01.01.563–574 

(transportation conformity); IDAPA 

58.01.23.800–860 (rulemaking); and 

IDAPA 58.01.01.667 (regional haze). In 

addition, the Idaho submittal states that 

Idaho DEQ submits information to the 

EPA’s AIRNOW program and provides 

daily air quality index scores for 

locations throughout the state on the 

Web site at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/

air/aqindex.cfm. 

EPA analysis: The Idaho SIP includes 

specific provisions for consulting with 

local governments and Federal Land 

Managers as specified in CAA section 

121, including the Idaho rules for major 

source PSD permitting. The EPA most 

recently approved Idaho permitting 

rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.209 and 

58.01.01.404, which provide 

opportunity and procedures for public 

comment and notice to appropriate 

Federal, state and local agencies, on 

November 26, 2010 (75 FR 47530) and 

January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217) 

respectively. We most recently 

approved the Idaho rules that define 

transportation conformity consultation 

on April 12, 2001 (66 FR 18873). While 

transportation conformity requirements 

do not apply for Pb because of the 

nature of the standard, the consultation 

procedures that Idaho has in place to 

implement transportation conformity 

requirements provides evidence of the 

State’s ability to consult with other 

governmental agencies on air quality 

issues. 

In practice, Idaho DEQ routinely 

coordinates with local governments, 

states, Federal Land Managers and other 

stakeholders on air quality issues 

including permitting action, 

transportation conformity, and regional 

haze. Therefore, we are proposing to 

find that the Idaho SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) 

for consultation with government 

officials for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires the 

public be notified if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and to enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. The 

EPA calculates an air quality index for 

five major air pollutants regulated by 

the CAA: ground-level ozone, 

particulate matter, carbon monoxide, 

sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. 

This air quality index provides daily 

information to the public on air quality. 

While Pb is not specifically part of the 

air quality index, we note that Idaho 

actively participates and submits 

information to the EPA’s AIRNOW and 

Enviroflash Air Quality Alert programs 

which provide information to the public 

on the air quality in their locale. In 

addition, Idaho provides air quality 

reports and forecasts to the public on 

the Idaho DEQ Web site at http://

www.deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/

monitoring/daily-reports-andforecasts.aspx, as well as measures that 

can be taken to prevent exceedances. 

Idaho provides the State’s annual 

network monitoring plan, annual air 

quality monitoring data summaries, and 

a map of the state air monitoring 

network to the public on their Web site 

at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/ 

monitoring/monitoring-network.aspx. 

The monitoring plans and data 

summaries include information on Pb 

monitoring. In addition, the Idaho SIP 

provides authority at IDAPA 

58.01.01.557 through 560 for notifying 

the public when air quality is degrading, 

as determined by the Director of Idaho 

DEQ, and that the Director will utilize 

appropriate news media to insure that 

information is announced to the public 

about the definition of the extent of the 

problem, the action taken by the 

Director, the air pollution forecast for 

the next few days, notice of when the 

next statement from DEQ will be issued, 

a listing of all general procedures which 

the public, commercial, institution and 

industrial sectors are required to follow, 

and specific warnings and advice to 

those persons who because of acute or 

chronic health problems may be most 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16733 

susceptible. Therefore, we are proposing 

to find that the Idaho SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) 

for public notification for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

Turning to the requirement in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the 

applicable requirements of part C of title 

I of the CAA, we have evaluated this 

requirement in the context of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to 

permitting. The EPA most recently 

approved revisions to Idaho’s PSD 

program on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 

11711), updating the program for 

purposes of fine particulate matter 

NAAQS implementation in attainment 

and unclassifiable areas. On July 17, 

2012 (77 FR 41916), we approved a 

revision to the Idaho SIP to provide 

authority to implement the PSD 

permitting program with respect to 

greenhouse gas emissions. The State’s 

PSD program implements the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS and incorporates the Federal 

PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 

52.21 by reference as of July 1, 2012. We 

believe that our proposed approval of 

element 110(a)(2)(J) is not affected by 

recent court vacaturs of Federal PSD 

implementing regulations. Please see 

our discussion at section 110(a)(2)(C). 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the Idaho SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(J) with 

regards to PSD for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

the EPA recognizes that states are 

subject to visibility and regional haze 

program requirements under part C of 

the CAA. In the event of the 

establishment of a new NAAQS, 

however, the visibility and regional 

haze program requirements under part C 

do not change. Thus we find that there 

is no new applicable requirement 

relating to visibility triggered under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new 

NAAQS becomes effective. 

Based on the above analysis, we are 

proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality and Modeling/ 

Data 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that 

SIPs provide for (i) the performance of 

such air quality modeling as the 

Administrator may prescribe for the 

purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of 

any air pollutant for which the 

Administrator has established a national 

ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the 

submission, upon request, of data 

related to such air quality modeling to 

the Administrator. 

State submittal: The Idaho submittal 

states that air quality modeling is 

conducted during development of 

revisions to the SIP, as appropriate for 

the State to demonstrate attainment 

with required air quality standards. 

Modeling is also addressed in the 

permitting process (see discussion at 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) above). 

Estimates of ambient concentrations are 

based on air quality models, data bases 

and other requirements specified in 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix W (Guidelines 

on Air Quality Models) and 

incorporated by reference at IDAPA 

58.01.01.107. 

EPA analysis: The EPA most recently 

approved IDAPA 58.01.01.107, which 

incorporates by reference the following 

EPA regulations: Requirements for 

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 51; 

National Primary and Secondary 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR 

part 50; Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 52; 

Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and 

Equivalent Methods, 40 CFR part 53; 

and Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, 

40 CFR part 58 revised as of July 1, 

2012, on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). 

Idaho has incorporated by reference the 

2008 Pb NAAQS into State regulations. 

While Idaho has no nonattainment areas 

for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, the State has 

submitted modeling data to EPA related 

to other pollutants. For example, Idaho 

submitted to the EPA the PM10

Maintenance Plan for Northern Ada 

County/Boise Idaho Area which 

contained air quality modeling data. We 

approved the maintenance plan as a SIP 

revision on October 27, 2003 (68 FR 

61106). Therefore, we are proposing to 

approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs 

to require each major stationary source 

to pay permitting fees to cover the cost 

of reviewing, approving, implementing 

and enforcing a permit. 

State submittal: The State submittal 

references the regulatory requirements 

for annual registration of title V sources 

through the Idaho Tier I permitting 

program and the annual assessment and 

payment of fees to support the Tier I 

permitting program. 

EPA analysis: The EPA approved the 

Idaho title V program on October 4, 

2001 (66 FR 50574) with an effective 

date of November 5, 2001. While the 

State’s operating permit program is not 

formally approved into the State SIP, it 

is a legal mechanism the state can use 

to ensure that Idaho DEQ has sufficient 

resources to support the air program, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

SIP. Before the EPA can grant full 

approval, a state must demonstrate the 

ability to collect adequate fees. The 

Idaho title V program included a 

demonstration that fees were adequate, 

and the State will collect a fee from title 

V sources above the presumptive 

minimum in accordance with 40 CFR 

70.9(b)(2)(i). In addition, Idaho 

regulations require fees for purposes of 

major and minor NSR permitting, as 

specified in IDAPA 58.01.01.224 

through 227. Therefore, we are 

proposing to conclude that Idaho has 

satisfied the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/Participation 

by Affected Local Entities 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires 

states to provide for consultation and 

participation in SIP development by 

local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP. 

State submittal: The Idaho submittal 

states that Idaho DEQ follows the 

consultation and participation process 

outlined in 40 CFR 51.102 and 

incorporates 40 CFR part 51 by 

reference at IDAPA 58.01.01.107. The 

submittal also references the following 

regulations: IDAPA 58.01.01.209, which 

provides for public comment and notice 

related to proposed actions on permit 

applications to construct; IDAPA 

58.01.01.404, which provides for public 

comment and notice on actions related 

to Tier II operating permits; and IDAPA 

58.01.01.563–574, which provides for 

transportation conformity consultation 

process and procedures. 

EPA analysis: We most recently 

approved IDAPA 58.01.01.107, which 

incorporates by reference EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR part 51— 

Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans on March 3, 2014 

(79 FR 11711). In addition, we most 

recently approved Idaho permitting 

rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.209 and 

58.01.01.404 which provide opportunity 

and procedures for public comment and 

notice to appropriate Federal, state and 

local agencies on November 26, 2010 

(75 FR 47530) and January 16, 2003 (68 

FR 2217) respectively. Finally, we 

approved the State rules that define 

transportation conformity consultation 

on April 12, 2001 (66 FR 18873). While 

transportation conformity requirements 

do not apply for Pb because of the 

nature of the standard, the consultation 

procedures that Idaho has in place to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16734 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

implement transportation conformity 

requirements provides evidence of the 

State’s ability to consult with other 

governmental agencies on air quality 

issues. 

Based on the analysis above, we are 

proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

V. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

February 14, 2012, submittal from the 

State of Idaho to demonstrate that the 

SIP meets the requirements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the Pb 

NAAQS promulgated on October 15, 

2008. Specifically, we are proposing to 

find that the Idaho SIP meets the 

following CAA section 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves the state’s law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

the state’s 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to the requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and the EPA notes 

that it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Particulate matter, and Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: March 13, 2014. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06666 Filed 3–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0686; FRL–9908–69– 

Region–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; State of Arizona; 

Redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment for 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to approve, as a revision of 

the Arizona State Implementation Plan, 

the State’s plan for maintaining the 1997 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

for ozone averaged over eight hours (8- 

hour ozone standard) in the PhoenixMesa nonattainment area for ten years 

beyond redesignation, and the related 

motor vehicle emission budgets, 

because they meet the applicable 

requirements for such plans and 

budgets. EPA is also proposing to 

approve a request from the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality to 

redesignate the Phoenix-Mesa 

nonattainment area to attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard because the 

request meets the statutory requirements 

for redesignation under the Clean Air 

Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 25, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2013–0686, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

3. Postal Mail or Delivery: Ginger 

Vagenas (AIR–2), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901. Deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

The online docket system at http://

www.regulations.gov is an anonymous 

access system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the EPA Region 9 office. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may not be specifically 

listed in the index to the docket or may 

be publicly available only in hard copy 

at the EPA Region 9 office (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports, or otherwise 

voluminous materials), and some may 

not be publicly available in electronic or 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS