Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21669 

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

Planning and Standards. ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2).’’ Memorandum to EPA Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1–10, September 13, 2013. 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

rules section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: April 2, 2014. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08646 Filed 4–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0708, FRL–9909–47– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho: 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and 2010 Sulfur 

Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to find that 

the Idaho State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) meets the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

for the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 

2010, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) on June 

2, 2010. Whenever a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated, the CAA 

requires states to submit a plan for the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan 

is required to address basic program 

elements, including but not limited to 

regulatory structure, monitoring, 

modeling, legal authority, and adequate 

resources necessary to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the standards. 

These elements are referred to as 

infrastructure requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 19, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2013–0708, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov 

• Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: 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–2013– 

0708. 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 Idaho Submittals 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The EPA first set standards for NO2 in 

1971, setting both a primary standard (to 

protect health) and a secondary 

standard (to protect the public welfare) 

at 53 parts per billion (53 ppb), averaged 

annually. The EPA reviewed the 

standards in 1985 and 1996, deciding to 

retain the standards at the conclusion of 

each review. In 2005, the EPA began 

another review, resulting in the January 

22, 2010, rulemaking to establish an 

additional primary NO2 standard at 100 

ppb, averaged over one hour (75 FR 

6474). 

Primary standards for SO2 were first 

set in 1971, at 0.14 parts per million 

(ppm) averaged over a 24-hour period, 

not to be exceeded more than once per 

year, and 0.030 ppm, annual arithmetic 

mean. The EPA subsequently reviewed 

the primary standards and determined 

to retain them in 1996 at the conclusion 

of the review. More recently, on June 2, 

2010, the EPA promulgated a revised 

primary SO2 standard at 75 ppb, based 

on a three-year average of the annual 

99th percentile of one-hour daily 

maximum concentrations (75 FR 35520). 

The CAA requires that states submit 

SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three 

years after promulgation of a new or 

revised standard. CAA sections 

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

address basic SIP elements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the standards, the socalled ‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements. To 

help states, the EPA issued guidance on 

September 13, 2013, addressing 

infrastructure SIP elements for certain 

NAAQS, including the 2010 NO2 and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS.1 As noted in the 

guidance, to the extent an existing SIP 

already meets the CAA section 110(a)(2) 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21670 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2For 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. 

3See, 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)). 

requirements, states may certify that fact 

via a letter to the EPA. 

On September 16, 2013, the State of 

Idaho submitted certifications to the 

EPA that the Idaho SIP meets the 

infrastructure requirements for the 2010 

NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) provided notice and an 

opportunity for public comment on the 

submittals from July 12, 2013, through 

August 13, 2013. A notice of public 

hearing was published in the Idaho 

Statesman on July 12, 2013. The Idaho 

DEQ held a public hearing on August 

13, 2013 in Boise, Idaho. No comments 

or testimony were received. The EPA 

has evaluated the Idaho submittals and 

determined that the requirements for 

reasonable notice and public hearing 

under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA have 

been met. 

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 emissions inventories that are 

designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

requirements, with 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. 

• 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 guidance clarified that two 

elements identified in CAA section 

110(a)(2) are 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 rather 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 

2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 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.2 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.3 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21671 

4The 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 

specific dates are necessarily later than three years 

after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS. 

5See, 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). 

6On 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. 

7For 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. 

8The 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. 

9 ‘‘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. 

10The 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 

Continued 

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.4 This ambiguity illustrates 

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.5 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.6

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.7

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.8 The EPA most 

recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Guidance).9 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.10 The 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21672 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

11By 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. 

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 

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.11 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21673 

12For 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). 13The 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). 

14See, 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). 

15For 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). 

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.12

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

correct errors in past actions, such as 

past approvals of SIP submissions.13

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.14

IV. Analysis of the Idaho Submittals 

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 submittals: The Idaho submittals 

cite an overview of the Idaho 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 

at IDAPA 58.01.01. Relevant laws cited 

include Idaho Code Section 39– 

105(3)(d) which provides Idaho DEQ 

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. Relevant regulations include 

IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03 (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—624 (control of open 

burning), IDAPA 58.01.01.625 (visible 

emissions requirements and testing), 

IDAPA 58.01.01.725 (rules for sulfur 

content of fuels), and IDAPA 

58.01.01.460—461 (banking of 

emissions). 

EPA analysis: The Idaho SIP 

incorporates by reference a number of 

Federal regulations, including the 

Federal NAAQS at 40 CFR part 50, 

revised as of July 1, 2012. The EPA most 

recently approved the incorporation by 

reference of these regulations at IDAPA 

58.01.01.107 ‘‘Incorporations by 

Reference’’ on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 

11711). Idaho has incorporated by 

reference the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

NAAQS into Idaho regulations. 

Idaho generally regulates emissions of 

NO2 and SO2 through its SIP-approved 

NSR permitting programs, in addition to 

operating permit regulations, sulfur 

content of fuels regulations, and rules 

for the control of open burning, fugitive 

dust, activities that generate visible 

emissions, and emissions banking. The 

EPA most recently approved revisions 

to Idaho’s major and minor NSR 

permitting programs on March 3, 2014 

(79 FR 11711). Idaho’s NSR rules 

incorporate by reference the Federal 

non-attainment NSR regulations and 

Federal PSD regulations at IDAPA 

58.01.204 and IDAPA 58.01.01.205 

respectively. In addition to NSR 

permitting regulations, Idaho’s Tier II 

operating permit regulations 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 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 PSD increment. 

In addition to the permitting rules 

described above, Idaho has adopted 

rules to limit and control emissions 

resulting from open burning (IDAPA 

58.01.01.600—624) and activities that 

generate visible emissions (IDAPA 

58.01.01.625). Idaho has also 

promulgated rules addressing the sulfur 

content of fuels (IDAPA 58.01.01.725) 

and banking of emissions (IDAPA 

58.01.01.460—461). Based on the above 

analysis, we are proposing to approve 

the Idaho SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

We note that, in this action, we are 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

any existing Idaho 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 15 and the EPA has recently 

proposed action to address such state 

regulations. 

In addition, we are not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing 

Idaho 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 (November 24, 1987, 52 FR 

45109), 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 EPA guidance 

to take steps to correct the deficiency as 

soon as possible. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21674 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

16 Idaho Air Quality 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 submittals: The Idaho submittals 

reference 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 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 Idaho 

submittals certify that under these rules 

Idaho meets the infrastructure 

requirement to implement ambient air 

monitoring surveillance systems in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

CAA. 

The Idaho submittals reference the 

2012 Idaho Annual Ambient Air 

Monitoring Network Plan, approved by 

the EPA on October 25, 2012. The Idaho 

submittals also reference the Web site 

where the Idaho DEQ provides the 

network plan, air quality monitoring 

summaries, a map of the monitoring 

network and real-time air monitoring 

data. 

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 most recently 

approved by the EPA on March 10, 

2014.16 The plan includes, among other 

things, the locations for NO2 and SO2

monitoring. Idaho makes the plan 

available for public review on the Idaho 

DEQ Web site at http://

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

monitoring/monitoring-network.aspx. 

The Web site also includes an 

interactive map of Idaho’s air 

monitoring network. Based on the 

foregoing, we are proposing to approve 

the Idaho SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(B) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

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

of Control Measures 

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

states have 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 submittals: The Idaho submittals 

refer to Idaho Code Section 39–108 

which provides Idaho DEQ with 

authority to enforce both 

administratively and civilly the Idaho 

Environmental Protection and Health 

Act (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 

submittals also refer to laws and 

regulations related to air quality permits 

at IDAPA 58.01.01.200—228 (permit to 

construct rules). 

The Idaho submittals also cite the 

annual incorporation by reference (IBR) 

rulemaking which updates Idaho’s SIP 

to include Federal changes to the 

NAAQS and PSD program. Idaho’s 

submittals certify that the annual IBR 

updates along with IDAPA sections 

200—288 (permitting requirements for 

new and modified sources) and 575— 

587 (air quality standards and area 

classification) meets the CAA 

infrastructure requirement to implement 

the PSD program. 

EPA analysis: With regard to the 

requirement to have a program 

providing for enforcement of all SIP 

measures, we are proposing to find that 

the Idaho 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 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

To generally meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with regard 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 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. As noted above, this 

action does not address CAA section 

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

nonattainment new source review 

(NSR). 

We most recently approved revisions 

to Idaho’s PSD program on March 3, 

2014, updating the Idaho PSD program 

with respect to Federal requirements for 

fine particulate matter implementation 

in attainment and unclassifiable areas 

(79 FR 11711). Previously on July 17, 

2012, we 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). Idaho’s PSD 

program implements the 2010 NO2 and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS and incorporates by 

reference the Federal PSD program 

requirements at 40 CFR 52.21 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 

2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

We note 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 

fine particulate matter 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21675 

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 

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. 

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 (SMC) to the Federal 

regulations at 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 

52.21(i)(5)(i)(c). as part of the Federal 

‘‘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, 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 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. 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. 

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 regarding the PM2.5 SILs that 

will address the court’s remand. In our 

previous action on March 3, 2014, we 

disapproved Idaho’s incorporation by 

reference of the vacated PM2.5 SILs and 

SMC 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. 

With regard to the minor NSR 

requirement of this element, the EPA 

has determined that Idaho’s minor NSR 

permitting program regulates NO2 and 

SO2 emissions from minor sources. 

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 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 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 submittals: The Idaho submittals 

did not address CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In accordance with the 

panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the D.C. Circuit opinion, at this time, 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP 

submissions from the State of Idaho for 

the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS are 

not required SIP submissions. 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). 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, and heard oral 

argument on December 10, 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 

submissions relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), in contrast, are 

required. 

For purposes of CAA 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the submittals 

referenced Idaho’s SIP-approved PSD 

program and Idaho’s Regional Haze SIP 

submitted to the EPA on October 25, 

2010. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) is 

discussed below. 

EPA analysis: The EPA believes that 

the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) PSD 

sub-element may be met by the State’s 

confirmation in the submittal that new 

major sources and major modifications 

in the State are subject to a SIPapproved PSD program. We most 

recently approved revisions to Idaho’s 

PSD program on March 3, 2014, 

updating the Idaho PSD program with 

respect to Federal requirements for fine 

particulate matter implementation in 

attainment and unclassifiable areas (79 

FR 11711). In addition, on July 17, 2012, 

we 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). Idaho’s PSD program 

implements the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

NAAQS and incorporates the Federal 

PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 

52.21 by reference as of July 1, 2012. As 

discussed above in section 110(a)(2)(C), 

we believe that our proposed approval 

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

affected by recent court vacaturs of EPA 

PSD implementing regulations. 

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 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

The EPA believes that, with regard to 

the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

visibility sub-element, the requirement 

may be satisfied by an approved SIP 

addressing regional haze. The Idaho 

submittals reference the Idaho Regional 

Haze SIP, submitted to the EPA 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 the 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). Finally, on 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21676 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

November 8, 2012, we approved the 

remainder of the Idaho Regional Haze 

SIP, including those portions that 

address CAA provisions that require 

states to set Reasonable Progress Goals 

for their Class I areas, and to develop a 

Long Term Strategy to achieve these 

goals (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 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

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

visibility for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

Interstate and international transport 

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

requires SIPs to include provisions 

ensuring 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. 

EPA analysis: We most recently 

approved revisions to the Idaho PSD 

program on March 3, 2014, updating the 

Idaho PSD program for fine particulate 

matter NAAQS implementation in 

attainment and unclassifiable areas (79 

FR 11711). In addition, 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 2010 NO2 and 

2010 SO2 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. Idaho also has no 

pending obligations under CAA 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 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 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) requirements that the state comply 

with the requirements respecting state 

boards under 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 submittals: The Idaho submittals 

refer to Idaho Code Section 39–106, 

which gives the Idaho DEQ Director 

authority to hire personnel to carry out 

duties of the department. In addition, 

the submittals reference Idaho Code 39– 

107, which establishes the State’s Board 

of Environmental Quality, Idaho Code 

Title 59 Chapter 7 (Ethics in 

Government Act), and Executive Order 

2013–06 which addresses composition 

requirements of the Idaho Board of 

Environmental Quality. Finally, the 

Idaho submittals reference Idaho Code 

Section 39–129, which authorizes 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 

provisions provide Idaho DEQ with 

adequate authority to carry out SIP 

obligations with respect to the 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS as required by 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). With regard 

to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), we 

previously approved a revision to the 

Idaho SIP for purposes of meeting CAA 

section 128 and CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) on October 24, 2013 (78 

FR 63394). Finally, we are proposing to 

find that Idaho has provided necessary 

assurances that, where Idaho has relied 

on a local or regional government, 

agency, or instrumentality for the 

implementation of any SIP provision, 

Idaho has responsibility for ensuring 

adequate implementation of the SIP 

with regards to the 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 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 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 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 submittals: The Idaho submittals 

reference the following provisions: 

IDAPA 58.01.01.157, which includes 

source testing methods and procedures; 

IDAPA 58.01.01.121, which outlines 

Idaho DEQ authority 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; IDAPA 58.01.01.157, 

which outlines test methods and 

procedures for source testing and 

reporting to the Idaho DEQ; IDAPA 

58.01.01.211, which contains conditions 

for permits to construct; IDAPA 

58.01.01.209, which contains 

procedures for issuing permits to 

construct, including public processes; 

IDAPA 58.01.01.404, which contains 

procedures for issuing Tier II operating 

permits, including public processes; and 

Idaho Code 9–342A and IDAPA 

58.01.21 which address public records. 

The Idaho submittals also state that 

Idaho reports emissions data for the six 

criteria pollutants to the EPA’s National 

Emissions Inventory, which is updated 

every three years. 

EPA analysis: The provisions cited in 

the Idaho submittals 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 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21677 

58.01.01.404 (procedures for issuing 

permits) for Tier II operating permits. 

Additionally, the State 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. 

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 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 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 submittals: The Idaho submittals 

cite Idaho Code 39–112 which provides 

emergency order authority comparable 

to that in CAA section 303. In addition, 

the submittals cite the Idaho Air 

Pollution Emergency Rules (IDAPA 

58.01.01.550–562). 

EPA analysis: CAA section 303 

provides authority to the EPA 

Administrator to restrain any source 

from causing or contributing 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 58.01.01.550–562 were 

previously approved by the EPA on 

January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217). Idaho’s 

air pollution emergency rules include 

NO2 and SO2, establish stages of episode 

criteria, provide for public 

announcement whenever any episode 

stage has been determined to exist, and 

specify emission control actions to be 

taken at each episode stage, consistent 

with the EPA emergency episode SIP 

requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 51 

subpart H (prevention of air pollution 

emergency episodes, sections 51.150 

through 51.153) for NO2 and SO2. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the Idaho SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 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 

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 submittals: The Idaho submittals 

refer to Idaho Code Sections 39–105(2) 

and (3)(d) which provide Idaho DEQ 

with broad 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 Idaho submittals also 

refer to IDAPA 58.01.01.575 through 

587 which establish and define 

acceptable ambient concentrations 

consistent with established criteria. 

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, Idaho regularly 

updates the SIP for purposes of NAAQS 

revisions and other related regulatory 

changes. We most recently approved 

revisions to the Idaho SIP on March 3, 

2014 (79 FR 11711). Idaho has 

incorporated by reference the 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS into the Idaho 

SIP. Therefore, we are proposing to 

approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(H) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 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 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 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 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 submittals: The Idaho submittals 

refer to laws and regulations relating to 

public participation processes for SIP 

revisions and permitting programs. The 

submittals refer to IDAPA 58.01.01.209 

and 404 which provide for public 

processes related to new source 

construction permitting and Tier II 

operating permits. The submittals also 

refer to Idaho Code Section 39–105(3)(c) 

which promotes outreach with local 

governments and Idaho Code Section 

39–129 which provides authority for 

Idaho DEQ to enter into agreements 

with local governments. In addition, the 

Idaho submittals reference the Idaho 

transportation conformity rules and 

regional haze rules which provide for 

consultation processes. With regard to 

public notification, the Idaho submittals 

state that Idaho DEQ submits 

information to EPA’s AIRNOW program 

and provides daily air quality index 

scores for many locations throughout 

Idaho. Finally, with regards to PSD, the 

submittals reference the Idaho rules for 

major source permitting at IDAPA 

58.01.01.200 through 223, including 

PSD requirements for sources in 

attainment and unclassifiable areas. 

EPA analysis: The Idaho SIP includes 

specific provisions for consulting with 

local governments and Federal Land 

Managers as specified in CAA section 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21678 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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). We 

most recently approved Idaho’s rules 

that define transportation conformity 

consultation on April 12, 2001 (66 FR 

18873), and Idaho’s regional haze rules 

on June 9, 2011 (76 FR 33651). 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 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

CAA 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. 

The EPA AIRNOW program provides 

this air quality index daily to the public, 

including health effects and actions 

members of the public can take to 

reduce air pollution. Idaho actively 

participates and submits information to 

the AIRNOW program, in addition to 

the EPA’s Enviroflash Air Quality Alert 

program. Idaho DEQ also provides the 

daily air quality index to the public on 

the DEQ Web site at http://

www.deq.idaho.gov/air/aqindex.cfm, as 

well as measures that can be taken to 

prevent exceedances. 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 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 the State’s PSD 

program on March 3, 2014, updating the 

Idaho PSD program with respect to 

Federal requirements for fine particulate 

matter implementation in attainment 

and unclassifiable areas (79 FR 11711). 

In addition, on July 17, 2012, we 

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 State’s PSD program 

implements the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

NAAQS and incorporates by reference 

the Federal PSD program regulations at 

40 CFR 52.21 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 EPA 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)(J) 

with respect to PSD for the 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 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 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 submittals: The Idaho submittals 

state that air quality modeling is 

conducted during development of 

revisions to the SIP, as appropriate for 

Idaho to demonstrate attainment with 

required air quality standards. Idaho 

cites IDAPA 58.01.01.202.02 and IDAPA 

58.01.01.402.03 which address permit to 

construct and Tier II operating permit 

application procedures and modeling 

requirements for estimating ambient 

concentrations, respectively. Modeling 

is also addressed in Idaho’s source 

permitting process as discussed at 

section 110(a)(2)(A) above. Estimates of 

ambient concentrations are based on 

requirements specified in 40 CFR part 

51, Appendix W (Guidelines on Air 

Quality Models) which is incorporated 

by reference at IDAPA 58.01.01.107. 

EPA analysis: We most recently 

approved IDAPA 58.01.01.107 

(incorporations by reference) on March 

3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). This rule 

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. Idaho has incorporated by 

reference the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

NAAQS into Idaho regulations. Idaho 

models estimates of ambient 

concentrations based on 40 CFR part 51 

Appendix W (Guidelines on Air Quality 

Models). To cite an example of a SIP 

supported by substantial modeling, the 

EPA approved the PM10 Maintenance 

Plan for Northern Ada County/Boise 

Idaho Area 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 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 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, until such time 

as the SIP fee requirement is superseded 

by the EPA’s approval of the state’s title 

V operating permit program. 

State submittals: The Idaho submittals 

refer to IDAPA 58.01.01.387 through 

397, which sets the requirements for the 

annual registration of Tier I (title V) 

sources and the annual assessment and 

payment of fees to support the Tier I 

permitting program. The EPA approved 

Idaho’s title V permitting program on 

October 4, 2001 (66 FR 50574). The 

submittals also reference IDAPA 

58.01.01.407 through 409 which set the 

requirements for Tier II operating permit 

processing fees and usage. 

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 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21679 

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). Idaho 

regulations require permitting fees for 

major sources subject to new source 

review, as specified at 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 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 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 

reference IDAPA 58.01.01.209, 364 and 

404 which provide for the public 

processes related to developing and 

issuing air quality permits. In addition, 

the submittals reference the 

transportation conformity consultation 

and public processes at IDAPA 

58.01.01.563 through 574. Finally, the 

submittals reference the consultation 

and participation process outlined in 40 

CFR 51.102, incorporated by reference 

at IDAPA 58.01.01.107. 

EPA analysis: The EPA most recently 

approved IDAPA 58.01.01.107 

(incorporations by reference), 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). 

Finally, we approved the State 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 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 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 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS: 

(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This action is 

being taken under section 110 of the 

CAA. 

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 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 

the 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 Idaho, 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, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 27, 2014. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08609 Filed 4–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0018, FRL–9909–46– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oregon: 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve part of the December 27, 2013, 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submittal from Oregon for purposes of 

meeting 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 

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 

Oregon SIP meets the CAA 

infrastructure requirements for the 2008 

Pb NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 19, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2014–0018, 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS