```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7489-7491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02846]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0855; FRL-9942-14-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: 
Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a submittal by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 
(Idaho DEQ) demonstrating that the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
promulgated for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010. 
Specifically, the Idaho DEQ reviewed monitoring and modeling data to 
show that sources within Idaho do not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NO2 
NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2015-0855 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full

[[Page 7490]]

EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit 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 
that is restricted by statute from disclosure. Certain other material, 
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region 
10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 
Washington 98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your 
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday 
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information please contact John 
Chi at (206) 553-1185, or chi.john@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Evaluation
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background

    On January 22, 2010, the EPA established a primary NO2 
NAAQS at 100 parts per billion (ppb), averaged over one hour, 
supplementing the existing annual standard (75 FR 6474). Within three 
years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, states must 
submit SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2), 
often referred to as infrastructure requirements. On December 24, 2015, 
the Idaho DEQ submitted a SIP revision to address CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements. The submittal included monitoring and 
modeling data analysis to demonstrate that sources within Idaho do not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with 
maintenance, of the 2010 NO2 and 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS 
in any other state. This action addresses the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 
only. We intend to address the 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS in a separate, 
future action.

II. Evaluation

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires state SIPs to contain 
adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions 
activity within a state from contributing significantly to 
nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in any 
other state.
    In the December 24, 2015 submittal, the Idaho DEQ reviewed air 
quality monitoring data for the United States and found that all 
monitored areas in the country met the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for 
the design value period 2008 through 2010. The Idaho DEQ also reviewed 
estimated background concentrations for the 1-hour NO2 
standard for the design value period 2009 through 2011. The modeled 
design values for that period were well below the 1-hour NO2 
NAAQS of 100 ppb. The Idaho DEQ concluded that based on monitoring data 
and modeled background concentrations Idaho does not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010 
NO2 NAAQS in any other state.
    In addition to reviewing Idaho's submittal, the EPA reviewed more 
recent monitoring data for NO2 throughout the United States. 
Using previous EPA methodology,\1\ EPA evaluated specific monitors 
identified as having nonattainment and/or maintenance problems, which 
we refer to as ``receptors.'' EPA identifies nonattainment receptors as 
any monitor that has violated the NO2 NAAQS in the most 
recent three-year period. Meanwhile, EPA identifies NO2 
maintenance receptors as any monitor that violated the NO2 
NAAQS in either of the prior monitoring cycles (2010-2012 and 2011-
2013), but attained in the most recent monitoring cycle (2012-2014). 
During the three most recent design value periods of 2010 through 2012, 
2011 through 2013, and 2012 through 2014, we found no monitors 
violating the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in the United States.\2\ Using 
this methodology, the EPA found no monitors meeting the criteria as a 
nonattainment receptor and/or as a maintenance receptor. Further, we 
note that available information indicates that monitored values are 
well below the 100 ppb 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in states bordering 
Idaho. The highest design value in bordering states for the most recent 
period is 68 ppb, at Utah County, Utah, as shown in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); 
CAIR, 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \2\ http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.

                        Table 1--1-Hour NO2 NAAQS Design Values in States Bordering Idaho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   2012-2014 DV
                     State                                   County                    Site            (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MT............................................  Rosebud.........................       300870001               7
NV............................................  Washoe..........................       320310016              54
OR............................................  Multnomah.......................       410510080              35
UT............................................  Cache...........................       490050004              49
UT............................................  Carbon..........................       490071003              31
UT............................................  Salt Lake.......................       490353006              55
UT............................................  Utah............................       490490002              68
WY............................................  Campbell........................       560050892              35
WY............................................  Fremont.........................       560130099               5
WY............................................  Sublette........................       560350101              22
WY............................................  Sweetwater......................       560370300              20
WY............................................  Uinta...........................       560410101              12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7491]]

    The EPA also reviewed regulatory provisions to control future new 
sources of nitrogen oxide emissions in Idaho. We note that on April 17, 
2014, we approved Idaho's NO2 infrastructure SIP (79 FR 
21669). In that action, we stated that Idaho generally regulates 
emissions of nitrogen oxides through its SIP-approved new source review 
permitting programs and operating permit regulations. Idaho's new 
source review permitting rules are found at IDAPA 58.01.01.200 through 
228. These rules help ensure that no new or modified source of nitrogen 
oxides will cause or contribute to violation of the NO2 
NAAQS. In addition, Idaho's Tier II operating permit regulations at 
IDAPA 58.01.01.400 through 410 require that to obtain an operating 
permit, the applicant must demonstrate the source will not cause or 
significantly contribute to a violation of any ambient air quality 
standard. These rules state that Idaho DEQ will require a Tier II 
source operating permit if Idaho DEQ determines emission rate 
reductions are necessary to attain or maintain any ambient air quality 
standard or applicable prevention of significant deterioration 
increment.
    Based on our review of the Idaho submittal, air quality monitoring 
data, and provisions in the current Federally-approved Idaho SIP 
regulating new sources, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that 
emissions from Idaho do not significantly contribute to nonattainment 
of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. We also do not expect the monitors in 
states bordering Idaho, identified in Table 1 above, to have difficulty 
maintaining the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. We believe it is reasonable 
to conclude that emissions from Idaho do not interfere with maintenance 
of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in any other state.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA has reviewed the December 24, 2015 submittal from the Idaho 
DEQ demonstrating that sources in Idaho do not significantly contribute 
to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NO2 
NAAQS in any other state. We have also reviewed recent monitoring data 
and regulatory provisions in the Federally-approved Idaho SIP. Based on 
our review, we are proposing to find that the Idaho SIP meets the CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 
2010 NO2 NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe 
has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 27, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-02846 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```