37170 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

less than 26 feet for long term usage. It 

would provide a vessel swing radius of 

approximately 1,400 feet for each vessel. 

The contemplated ground would 

encompass waters within lines 

connecting the following points: 41– 

14.02′ N., 073–57.45′ W.; thence to 41– 

14.09′ N., 073–57.15′ W.; thence to 41– 

31.10′ N., 073–57.00′ W.; thence to 41– 

13.18′ N., 073–56.60′ W.; thence to the 

point of origin (NAD 83). 

Contemplated Yonkers Extension 

Anchorage Ground 

We are considering proposing that a 

Yonkers Extension Anchorage Ground 

would cover approximately 715 acres 

for up to 16 vessels with a draft of less 

than 35 feet for long term usage. It 

would provide a vessel swing radius of 

approximately 1,200 feet for each vessel. 

The contemplated anchorage ground 

would encompass waters within lines 

connecting the following points: 41– 

00.60′ N., 073–53.61′ W.; thence to 41– 

00.60′ N., 073–53.31′ W.; thence to 40– 

58.05′ N., 073–53.96′ W.; thence to 40– 

56.96′ N., 073–54.39′ W.; thence to 40– 

57.02′ N., 073–54.71′ W.; thence to 40– 

58.11′ N., 073–54.25′ W.; thence to the 

point of origin (NAD 83). 

E. Information Requested 

Public participation is requested to 

assist in determining the best way 

forward with respect to establishing 

new anchorage grounds on the Hudson 

River between Yonkers, NY, to 

Kingston, NY. To aid us in developing 

a possible proposed rule, we seek any 

comments, whether positive or negative, 

including but not limited to the impacts 

anchorage grounds may have on 

navigation safety and current vessel 

traffic in this area, the proposed number 

and size of vessels anchoring in each 

proposed anchorage ground, and the 

authorized duration for each vessel in 

each proposed anchorage ground. We 

are also seeking comments on any 

additional locations where anchorage 

grounds may be helpful on the Hudson 

River or any recommended alterations 

to the specific locations considered in 

this notice. Please submit any comments 

or concerns you may have in accordance 

with the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ section above. 

L.L. Fagan, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2016–13701 Filed 6–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0397: FRL–9947–53– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho: 

Stationary Source Permitting 

Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve, and 

incorporate by reference, revisions to 

the Idaho State Implementation Plan 

submitted on May 21, 2015. In the 

submission, Idaho revised stationary 

source permitting rules, including the 

addition of facility-wide emission limits 

and nonmetallic mineral processing 

plant regulations. Idaho also added an 

alternative method for stationary 

sources to comply with sulfur content of 

fuels limits, and updated provisions to 

account for changes to federal air 

quality regulations. The EPA proposes 

to approve the submitted revisions as 

consistent with the Clean Air Act and 

the EPA’s implementing regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2015–0397, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from http://

www.regulations.gov. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 

video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 

written comment. The written comment 

is considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., 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 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http://

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, 

Washington 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, or 

hall.kristin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. State Submission 

III. Analysis of Submitted Revisions 

A. Facility-Wide Emissions Cap Rules 

B. Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant 

Rules 

C. Sulfur Content of Fuels Provision 

D. Definitions and Baselines for Fine 

Particulate Matter 

E. Incorporation by Reference Updates 

F. Effect of Court Decisions Vacating and 

Remanding Certain Federal Rules 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) governs the process by which a 

state submits air quality protection 

requirements to the EPA for approval 

into the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The SIP is the state’s plan to 

implement, maintain and enforce the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) set by the EPA. Idaho 

regularly updates the Rules for the 

Control of Air Pollution in Idaho 

(IDAPA 58.01.01) to reflect changes to 

the NAAQS and to improve 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of those standards. We note 

that Idaho incorporates by reference 

portions of certain federal regulations 

directly into the SIP. The state generally 

submits an annual update to the EPA to 

keep rules consistent with federal 

requirements. 

II. State Submission 

On May 21, 2015, Idaho submitted 

revisions to state air quality rules at 

IDAPA 58.01.01 to the EPA for approval 

into the SIP. Idaho adopted these rule 

changes on November 19 and November 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 37171 

1EPA did not approve section .03 of IDAPA 

58.01.01.201 because it is related to toxic air 

pollutants and not the criteria pollutants or other 

requirements of CAA section 110 (January 16, 2003; 

68 FR 2217, at page 2221). 

2The EPA did not approve section .01.a and 

section .04 of IDAPA 58.01.01.401, related to 

alternative emission limits and compliance date 

extensions (November 26, 2010; 75 FR 72719, at 

page 72723). 

21, 2014. The state provided notice and 

an opportunity for public comment and 

hearing on the changes. Notices were 

published in the Idaho Administrative 

Bulletin and public hearings were held 

on September 9 and October 7, 2014. 

We have evaluated Idaho’s submission 

and propose to find the state has met the 

requirements for reasonable notice and 

public hearing under section 110 of the 

CAA. 

III. Analysis of Submitted Revisions 

A. Facility-Wide Emissions Cap Rules 

In the submission, Idaho revised the 

rules that permit construction and 

operation of stationary sources. Idaho’s 

changes give certain minor sources the 

option to apply for facility-wide 

emission limitations. These limitations, 

or caps, when incorporated into a minor 

source permit to construct or Tier II 

operating permit, are intended to allow 

minor sources to operate more flexibly, 

without having to request permit 

modifications for certain process 

changes. 

For example, semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities make many 

equipment and process changes as they 

develop new products and technologies. 

However, many equipment and process 

changes do not warrant extensive 

review as a permit modification. The 

intent of the facility-wide emissions cap 

is to set a cap on emissions from a 

facility, while allowing process changes 

under certain conditions that may 

increase emissions. As long as facility 

emissions stay below the cap and the 

process changes do not trigger new 

requirements, the source may be 

permitted to construct and operate. 

The new Idaho rules for limiting 

emissions from minor sources are called 

the facility-wide emissions cap rules, or 

‘‘FEC’’ rules, codified at IDAPA 

58.01.01.175 through 181. These rules 

lay out the requirements a minor source 

must meet to request a FEC limit, and 

the method for determining the limit. A 

FEC limit is expressed as tons per year, 

on a 12-month rolling basis, and may be 

applied to any criteria pollutant or 

hazardous air pollutant. The FEC rules 

do not provide for issuance of a standalone permit. Rather, owners or 

operators of eligible facilities may 

request a FEC limit be incorporated into 

a new or existing permit to construct or 

Tier II operating permit. As stated 

above, only minor sources are eligible. 

These include sources that request an 

emission limit to avoid major source 

permitting, otherwise known as 

synthetic minor sources. 

In our review, we have evaluated the 

addition of the FEC option to determine 

if the revised minor source permit to 

construct and Tier II operating permit 

programs continue to comply with the 

CAA and the EPA’s implementing 

regulations. We propose to find that 

they do, and that the FEC rules are 

approvable for the reasons stated below. 

First, the FEC rules contain adequate 

provisions to prevent sources operating 

under a FEC limit from causing or 

contributing to a violation of the 

NAAQS. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) 

requires ‘‘. . . regulation of the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source . . . as necessary to 

assure that the [NAAQS] are achieved.’’ 

The EPA’s implementing regulations for 

minor sources, set forth in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 

51.160 through 164, require a state to 

have procedures to prevent construction 

or modification of a source if it will 

result in a violation of a pollution 

control strategy, or if it will interfere 

with the attainment or maintenance of 

a NAAQS. 

The FEC rules ensure maintenance of 

the NAAQS by limiting the option to 

obtain a FEC limit to minor sources and 

requiring the applicant to demonstrate 

that operating under the FEC limit will 

not cause or contribute to a violation of 

a NAAQS. As stated in IDAPA 

58.01.01.176.02.a, major sources, or 

sources undergoing a major 

modification, cannot obtain a FEC limit. 

Moreover, by its terms, the FEC limit is 

set below major source thresholds. The 

FEC rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.178.03 

through .04 also require recordkeeping 

and reporting, including an annual 

report, demonstrating compliance with 

the FEC limit(s) and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

Second, the addition of the FEC 

option does not alleviate any of the 

application requirements for either the 

minor source permit to construct 

program or the Tier II operating permit 

program. The EPA has already approved 

Idaho’s application procedures for both 

programs. The EPA approved revisions 

to Idaho’s minor source permit to 

construct application procedures most 

recently on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 

2217).1 Similarly, the EPA approved 

revisions to Idaho’s Tier II operating 

permit program most recently on 

November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72719).2

In sum, we are proposing to approve 

and incorporate by reference the FEC 

rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.175 through 

181 into the Idaho SIP, except as the 

rules relate to hazardous air pollutants. 

Hazardous air pollutants are regulated 

under CAA section 112, and are not 

appropriate for approval into the SIP. 

The SIP includes provisions related to 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS, and other specific 

requirements of CAA section 110. We 

are also proposing to approve and 

incorporate by reference the revisions to 

IDAPA 58.01.01.201 Permit to Construct 

Required and IDAPA 58.01.01.401 Tier 

II Operating Permit to appropriately 

cross-reference the FEC rules. However, 

consistent with our previous action on 

November 26, 2010, we are not 

approving section .01.a and section .04 

of IDAPA 58.01.01.401 because the 

provisions allow for unbounded 

director’s discretion (75 FR 72719). 

B. Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant 

Rules 

In the submission, Idaho made 

changes to streamline the permit 

process for rock crushers, asphalt 

plants, and other portable equipment 

used to process nonmetallic minerals. 

Instead of continuing to require that a 

regulated rock crusher obtain a permit 

to construct before starting operation, 

Idaho created a permit by rule that 

establishes controls and other operating 

parameters that apply to an eligible 

source upon registration with the Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

These requirements are codified at 

IDAPA 58.01.01.790 through 799 Rules 

for the Control of Nonmetallic Mineral 

Processing Plants. Sources that register 

and operate in compliance with the 

rules are considered to have a ‘‘permit 

by rule.’’ Only minor sources that 

operate for less than twelve consecutive 

months at a single location are eligible 

for the permit by rule. Sources covered 

by the Federal New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart OOO are not eligible, nor are 

new and modified major sources. By 

extension, rock crushers that are part of 

a new major source or proposed major 

modification are not eligible for the 

permit by rule. 

The requirements for eligible 

nonmetallic mineral processing plants 

specify that obtaining a permit by rule 

does not relieve the owner or operator 

of an eligible source from the 

responsibility of complying with other 

federal, state and local applicable laws, 

regulations, and requirements. The rules 

make clear that sources subject to the 

NSPS for Nonmetallic Mineral 

Processing Plants, or the NSPS for 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
37172 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Portland Cement Plants or Hot Mix 

Asphalt Plants, must continue to 

comply with the NSPS limits and 

controls, as applicable. Provisions in the 

rules related to NSPS and title V source 

operating permits (IDAPA 58.01.01.792 

and IDAPA 58.01.01.794.04) are 

generally not appropriate for SIP 

approval because they are not intended 

to implement the requirements of CAA 

section 110. Moreover, the NSPS for 

Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants, 

codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

OOO, applies to affected facilities by its 

terms regardless of Idaho’s rule. See 40 

CFR 60.670. 

The nonmetallic mineral processing 

plant rules set out the registration 

process and operating parameters for 

rock crushers and other eligible sources, 

including limits on the hours of 

operation, fuel consumptions rates, best 

management practices, and general 

controls designed to ensure compliance 

with the NAAQS. The registration 

procedures for the permit by rule are 

contained in IDAPA 58.01.01.795 

through 799. Owners and operators may 

choose to operate an eligible plant 

under the permit by rule by registering 

the new or modified processing plant 

fifteen days prior to commencing 

operation or modification. As part of the 

registration, the owner or operator must 

supply information, such as 

manufacturer, model, and throughput 

capacity, on the rock crushers, screen 

decks, and electric generators proposed 

to be part of the processing plant. 

Owners and operators who register 

their nonmetallic mineral processing 

plants are deemed to have a permit by 

rule if they operate the plants in 

accordance with the applicable 

substantive requirements. In general, the 

rules prohibit emissions that would be 

injurious to human health or welfare, 

animal or plant life, or property, or that 

would interfere unreasonably with the 

enjoyment of life or property. In 

addition, owners and operators of 

eligible sources must take all reasonable 

precautions to prevent the generation of 

fugitive dust, in addition to meeting 

specific opacity standards spelled out 

for categories of activities at areas of 

operation. 

Specific requirements sources must 

meet include fuel restrictions, limits on 

operating hours, and monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements for 

electrical generators at a source. For 

example, electrical generators must run 

on American Society of Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) Grade 1 or 2 fuel oil 

and must also meet specific sulfur 

content in fuel restrictions. Sources also 

must restrict visible emissions from 

various activities to 20% opacity or less, 

aggregating more than three minutes in 

any sixty minute period. NSPSregulated processing plants are held to 

stricter opacity limits. 

In addition to meeting opacity limits, 

sources must use best management 

practices to limit fugitive dust from the 

operation, including controls on paved 

public roads, unpaved haul roads, 

transfer points, screening operations, 

stacks and vents, crushers and grinding 

mills, and stockpiles. These best 

management practices are triggered 

during the course of operations, for 

instance when observed visible 

emissions from vehicle traffic 

approaches the opacity limit, or when 

citizen complaints come in that have 

merit. Sources must maintain a daily 

record of observing the operation, 

including when events trigger required 

control strategies and the corrective 

actions taken. 

Idaho also amended IDAPA 

58.01.01.011 to include new terms 

supporting the nonmetallic mineral 

processing plant rules. The new 

definitions include: ‘‘Best Management 

Practice,’’ ‘‘Control Strategy Trigger,’’ 

‘‘Nonmetallic Mineral Processing 

Plant,’’ ‘‘NSPS Regulated Facility or 

Plant,’’ ‘‘Permit by Rule,’’ ‘‘Progressive 

Control Strategy,’’ and ‘‘Site of 

Operations.’’ 

The EPA proposes to determine that 

the permit by rule provisions for rock 

crushers and other nonmetallic mineral 

processing plants are consistent with 

the types of permit terms and conditions 

that are generally used when issuing 

source-specific permits to sources in 

this category, and may in fact be more 

prescriptive. We also propose to 

conclude that the addition of the 

nonmetallic mineral processing rules 

are consistent with the CAA and the 

EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 

CFR 51.160 through 164. We are 

therefore proposing to approve IDAPA 

58.01.01.011 and IDAPA 58.01.01.790 

through 799 into the Idaho SIP, except 

IDAPA 58.01.01.792, and IDAPA 

58.01.01.794.04 because they are not 

related to the requirements of CAA 

section 110 and are inappropriate for 

SIP approval. 

C. Sulfur Content of Fuels Provision 

The Idaho sulfur content of fuels 

provision regulates the sulfur dioxide 

emissions from stationary sources by 

setting limits on the sulfur content of 

residual fuel oil, distillate fuel oil, and 

coal that is sold, distributed, used, or 

made available in Idaho. The provision 

is located in IDAPA 58.01.01.725 Rules 

for Sulfur Content of Fuels. In the 

submission, Idaho revised the rule 

provision to allow a stationary source— 

when applying for a permit to construct 

or operate—to request an alternative 

method to comply with sulfur in fuel 

limits. The revision specifies that the 

alternative may only be allowed if the 

applicant demonstrates that sulfur 

dioxide emissions would be equal to or 

less than emissions would be under the 

prescribed sulfur content of fuel limits. 

In other words, to get approval to use a 

fuel with higher sulfur content, a 

stationary source must show that, by 

installing a control device, the source 

can reduce hourly controlled emissions 

to less than the maximum hourly 

emissions from combusting complying 

fuels. 

If a demonstration meets the rule 

requirements, the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality may approve the 

alternative compliance method into a 

stationary source permit to construct or 

operating permit. Any permit issued 

must contain the appropriate source 

monitoring, record-keeping and 

reporting requirements, for ensuring 

compliance, in accordance with Idaho’s 

federally-approved permit to construct 

and operating permit programs. 

We note that this rule revision alone 

does not allow the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality to relax any 

existing permit limits or conditions 

without also ensuring compliance with 

existing permit rules. In addition, any 

modification required for a stationary 

source to combust higher sulfur fuels, 

even without increasing allowable 

emissions, may be subject to 

preconstruction permitting rules. 

Based on the information above, we 

conclude that the rule change is 

designed to protect the NAAQS, and we 

propose to approve and incorporate by 

reference the revision to IDAPA 

58.01.01.725 Rules for Sulfur Content of 

Fuels. 

D. Definitions and Baselines for Fine 

Particulate Matter 

In the submission, Idaho revised 

IDAPA 58.01.01.006 General Definitions 

to clarify that the definition of ‘‘Criteria 

Air Pollutant’’ includes fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5), and added specific 

definitions for PM2.5 and PM2.5

emissions. Idaho also updated the 

Baselines for Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration rule section to add major 

and minor source baseline dates for 

PM2.5. We propose to approve these 

revisions as consistent with the CAA, 

the EPA’s fine particulate matter 

standards set forth at 40 CFR 50.18, and 

major and minor source baseline dates 

and area requirements detailed at 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(14) and (15). We note 

that, consistent with our previous action 

on March 3, 2014, we are not approving 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 37173 

3 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

4 722 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

5 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014). 

the terms defined in sections .49, .50, 

.51, .66, .67, .68.b, .114, and .116 

because these terms relate to toxic air 

pollutants, not the criteria pollutants 

and the requirements of CAA section 

110 (79 FR 11711). 

E. Incorporation by Reference Updates 

Idaho revised section .03 of IDAPA 

58.01.01.107 Incorporations by 

Reference by updating the citation dates 

that incorporate federal provisions 

effective as of that date. Paragraph .a 

incorporates by reference the 

Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 51, 

with the exception of certain visibilityrelated provisions, effective July 1, 

2014. We note that Idaho did not submit 

updates to the incorporation of federal 

provisions relied on as part of the 

State’s nonattainment area major 

stationary source preconstruction 

permitting program. 

Paragraphs .b, .d, and .e of the same 

section incorporate the following 

provisions effective July 1, 2014: .b 

National Primary and Secondary 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR 

part 50; .d Ambient Air Monitoring 

Reference and Equivalent Methods, 40 

CFR part 53; and .e Ambient Air Quality 

Surveillance, 40 CFR part 58. We 

propose to find that paragraphs .b, .d, 

and .e are consistent with CAA 

requirements. Idaho did not submit 

paragraphs .f through .n for approval 

because the provisions are not related to 

CAA section 110 and the criteria 

pollutants, and are inappropriate for SIP 

approval. 

Paragraph .c incorporates the 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 52 

subparts A and N, and appendices D 

and E. This includes the Federal 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permitting rules at 40 CFR 52.21, 

effective July 1, 2014. We propose to 

find that paragraph .c is consistent with 

CAA requirements. We note that 

specific federal PSD permitting rules 

have been vacated and remanded by the 

courts to the EPA. Idaho has responded 

by submitting rule changes to align the 

Idaho SIP with the court decisions. 

Please see Section III. F. below. 

F. Effect of Court Decisions Vacating 

and Remanding Certain Federal Rules 

1. PM2.5 PSD Provisions 

As discussed above, Idaho 

incorporates by reference federal PSD 

permitting requirements. The current 

Idaho SIP incorporates these rules, 

codified at 40 CFR 52.21, as of July 1, 

2012, except revisions to 40 CFR 

52.21(i) (relating to the significant 

monitoring concentration (SMC)) and 40 

CFR 52.21(k) (relating to the significant 

impact level (SIL)) that added a SMC 

and SIL for PM2.5 as part of the 2010 

PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

(October 20, 2010, 75 FR 64864). We 

partially disapproved Idaho’s previous 

submittal incorporating these provisions 

because they were vacated by a court 

after Idaho had already adopted and 

submitted them to the EPA (April 7, 

2015, 80 FR 18526). 

On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 

in Sierra Club v. EPA,3 issued, with 

respect to the SMC, a judgment that, 

among other things, vacated the 

provisions adding the PM2.5 SMC to the 

federal regulations at 40 CFR 

51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c). 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, where a state PSD program 

contains such a provision and allows 

issuance of 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. 

At the EPA’s request, the decision 

also vacated and remanded 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. We 

also note that the Court’s decision does 

not affect the PSD increments for PM2.5

promulgated as part of the 2010 PSD 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule. 

On December 9, 2013, the EPA 

amended its regulations to remove the 

vacated PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions 

from the federal PSD regulations (78 FR 

73698). In response, Idaho updated the 

incorporation by reference of federal 

PSD regulations to July 1, 2014, 

capturing the EPA’s removal of the 

vacated provisions. Idaho also revised 

the ambient air quality analysis 

requirements for major sources seeking 

PSD permits (IDAPA 58.01.01.202 

Permit to Construct, at section .01) to 

clarify the appropriate use of a SIL and 

reference the federal PSD regulation 

listing SILs. We propose to find that 

these revisions are consistent with the 

Court’s opinion and current EPA PSD 

regulations. 

2. PSD Deferral of Certain Emissions 

From Biogenic Sources 

In 2011, the EPA revised the 

definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ at 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a). The intent 

was to defer for three years (until July 

21, 2014) PSD permitting for carbon 

dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy 

and other biogenic stationary sources 

(Deferral for CO2 Emissions from 

Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources 

under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and Title V 

Programs; Final Rule (July 20, 2011, 76 

FR 43490) (Biogenic CO2 Deferral Rule)). 

Idaho’s SIP incorporates by reference 

federal PSD permitting rules and 

includes this deferral provision. 

On July 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia, in 

Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA,4

vacated the Biogenic CO2 Deferral Rule. 

The deferral expired on July 21, 2014, 

and by its terms is no longer in effect. 

3. PSD Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory 

Group v. Environmental Protection 

Agency,5 issued a decision addressing 

the application of PSD permitting to 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The 

Supreme Court said that the EPA may 

not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for 

purposes of determining whether a 

source is a major source (or 

modification thereof) required to obtain 

a PSD permit. The Court also said that 

the EPA could continue to require that 

PSD permits, otherwise required based 

on emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs, contain limits on GHG emissions 

based on the application of Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT). 

In order to act consistently with its 

understanding of the Court’s decision, 

pending further judicial action before 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia to effectuate the decision, 

the EPA is not continuing to apply the 

EPA regulations that would require SIPs 

to include permitting requirements that 

the Supreme Court found 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
37174 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

impermissible. Specifically, the EPA is 

not applying the requirement that a 

state’s SIP-approved PSD program 

require that sources obtain PSD permits 

when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) 

that the source emits or has the 

potential to emit above the major source 

thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a 

significant emissions increase and a 

significant net emissions increase from 

a modification (e.g., 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v)). 

The EPA recently revised federal PSD 

rules in light of the Supreme Court 

decision (May 7, 2015, 80 FR 26183). In 

addition, we anticipate that many states 

will revise their existing SIP-approved 

PSD programs in light of the Supreme 

Court’s decision. We do not expect that 

all states have revised their existing PSD 

program regulations yet, however, we 

are evaluating submitted PSD program 

revision to ensure that the state’s 

program correctly addresses GHGs, 

consistent with the Court’s decision. 

Idaho’s current SIP contains the GHG 

permitting requirements reflected in 40 

CFR 52.21, as amended in the Tailoring 

Rule. As a result, the PSD permitting 

program in Idaho, previously approved 

into the SIP, continues to require that 

PSD permits (otherwise required based 

on emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs) contain limits on GHG 

emissions, based on the application of 

BACT, when sources emit or increase 

GHGs in the amount of 75,000 tons per 

year (measured as carbon dioxide 

equivalent). 

Although the approved Idaho PSD 

permitting program may also currently 

contain provisions that are no longer 

necessary in light of the Supreme Court 

decision, this does not prevent the EPA 

from approving this SIP submission. 

Idaho’s submission does not add any 

GHG permitting requirements that are 

inconsistent with the Supreme Court 

decision. While Idaho’s submission 

incorporates all of 40 CFR 52.21 for 

completeness, the submission 

reincorporates PSD requirements for 

GHGs already in the Idaho SIP. 

IV. Proposed Action 

We propose to approve, and 

incorporate by reference into the Idaho 

SIP, changes to the following provisions 

submitted on May 21, 2015: 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.006 General 

Definitions, except .49, .50, .51, .66, .67, 

.68.b, .114, and .116 (State effective 4/ 

11/2014); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.011 Definitions for 

the Purposes of Sections 790 through 

799 (State effective 3/15/2002); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.107 Incorporations 

by Reference, except .03.f through .n, 

and with respect to .a, the incorporation 

by reference of 40 CFR 51.165 (State 

effective 4/11/2015); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.157 Test Methods 

and Procedures (State effective 4/11/

2015); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.175 Procedures 

and Requirements for Permits 

Establishing a Facility Emissions Cap 

(State effective 4/11/2015); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.176 Facility 

Emissions Cap, except for provisions 

relating to hazardous air pollutants 

(State effective 4/11/2015); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.177 Application 

Procedures (State effective 4/11/2015); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.178 Standard 

Contents of Permits Establishing a 

Facility Emissions Cap (State effective 

4/11/2015); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.179 Procedures for 

Issuing Permits Establishing a Facility 

Emissions Cap (State effective 4/11/

2015); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.180 Revisions to 

Permits Establishing a Facility 

Emissions Cap (State effective 4/11/

2015); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.181 Notice and 

Record-Keeping of Estimates of Ambient 

Concentrations (State effective 4/11/

2015); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.201 Permit to 

Construct Required (State effective 4/11/ 

2006); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.202 Application 

Procedures (State effective 4/11/2015); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.401 Tier II 

Operating Permit, except .01.a and .04, 

(State effective 4/11/2006); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.579 Baselines for 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(State effective 4/11/2015); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.725 Rules for 

Sulfur Content of Fuels (State effective 

4/11/2015); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.790 Rules for the 

Control of Nonmetallic Mineral 

Processing Plants (State effective 3/15/

2002); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.791 General 

Control Requirements, (State effective 3/ 

15/2002); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.793 Emissions 

Standards for Nonmetallic Mineral 

Processing Plants not Subject to 40 CFR 

60, Subpart OOO (State effective 3/15/ 

2002); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.794 Permit 

Requirements, except .04 (State effective 

4/11/2015); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.795 Permit by Rule 

Requirements (State effective 3/15/

2002); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.796 Applicability 

(State effective 3/15/2002); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.797 Registration 

for Permit by Rule (State effective 3/15/ 

2002); 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.798 Electrical 

Generators (State effective 3/15/2002); 

and 

• IDAPA 58.01.01.799 Nonmetallic 

Mineral Processing Plan Fugitive Dust 

Best Management Practice (State 

effective 3/15/2002). 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, we are proposing to 

include in a final rule regulatory text 

that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the provisions described above in 

Section IV. Proposed Action. The EPA 

has made, and will continue to make, 

these documents generally available 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

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 

CAA and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 (Public Law 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); 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules 37175 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

it does not involve technical standards; 

and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it 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, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

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

Dated: May 26, 2016. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2016–13693 Filed 6–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0136; FRL–9947–49– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur 

Dioxide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

for ELT Minneapolis, LLC’s River Road 

Industrial Center located in Fridley, 

Anoka County, Minnesota. The revision, 

submitted by the Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency on February 24, 2016, 

updates information updates 

information to reflect both 

administrative and equipment changes 

at the facility. The name of the facility 

has changed to BAE Technology Center. 

The revision will result in a significant 

decrease in SO2 emissions and will 

support the continued attainment and 

maintenance of the SO2 national 

ambient air quality standard in the Twin 

Cities area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2016–0136 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hatten, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031, 

hatten.charles@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving Minnesota’s 

SO2 SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If EPA does not receive adverse 

comments in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, EPA will 

withdraw the direct final rule and will 

address all public comments received in 

a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if EPA receives adverse comment 

on an amendment, paragraph, or section 

of this rule, and if that provision can be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. For additional 

information, see the direct final rule 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. 

Dated: May 31, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2016–13603 Filed 6–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 405, 412, 413, and 485 

[CMS–1655–CN] 

RIN 0938–AS77 

Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient 

Prospective Payment Systems for 

Acute Care Hospitals and the LongTerm Care Hospital Prospective 

Payment System and Proposed Policy 

Changes and Fiscal Year 2017 Rates; 

Quality Reporting Requirements for 

Specific Providers; Graduate Medical 

Education; Hospital Notification 

Procedures Applicable to Beneficiaries 

Receiving Observation Services; and 

Technical Changes Relating to Costs 

to Organizations and Medicare Cost 

Reports; Correction 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects 

technical and typographical errors in 

the proposed rule that appeared in the 

Federal Register on April 27, 2016 titled 

‘‘Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient 

Prospective Payment Systems for Acute 

Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care 

Hospital Prospective Payment System 

and Proposed Policy Changes and Fiscal 

Year 2017 Rates; Quality Reporting 

Requirements for Specific Providers; 

Graduate Medical Education; Hospital 

Notification Procedures Applicable to 

Beneficiaries Receiving Observation 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS